Climate change changes your life, now

Houston, you have a problem

Vincent J. Curtis

23 Feb 24

RE: How global warming is reshaping life in winter. Op-ed by H. Damon Matthews and Mitchell Dickau. Matthews is a professor and climate scientist in the department of geography planning and environment at Concordia University. Dickau is a Ph.D. candidate in the same department and the same school.

The opinions of the two researches who claim that global warming is causing changes of “life in winter” suffers from two flaws: one factual and the other analytical.

The factual flaw is that the globe simply hasn’t warmed to any significant degree since 1998.  Global temperature measurement by satellite began in 1979, the coldest year of the 20^th century, and the end of the decade of the “coming ice age.”  Temperatures warmed until 1998 and then the world entered into the “global warming pause.”  This inexplicable pause is why “climate change” took over from “global warming” at the climatic boogie-man.  Finally, 2023 was warmer than 1998 after the Tonga Hunga volcanic eruption of 2022 filled the stratosphere with water vapor.  Temperature fluctuations of a few tenths of a degree Celsius are the substance of this alleged “warming.”

The second problem is analytical. If it doesn’t get as hot in summer as it used to, then winters can be warmer without any change in annual average temperature, and the researchers looked only at winters.  The number of extremely hot days has been falling in North America since the peak of the 1930s.

I’ve experienced Alberta winters since 2015; some are better than others, but all are marked by several periods of -30C temperatures.  It dropped to -37C for a week this January.

There is no climate crisis: don’t be snowed!

-30-

Marxism won't fix a housing crisis

Marxism isn’t the answer

Vincent J. Curtis

16 Feb 24

RE: The private sector housing experiment has failed. Op-ed by Shauna MacKinnon The Hamilton Spectator 16 Feb 24. Shauna MacKinnon is a professor and chair of the department of urban and inner city studies at the University of Winnipeg.

You’d expect a Marxist to conclude that capitalism has failed, as Professor MacKinnon has done.  You’d expect a Marxist to say that only heavy intervention and control of economic resources by the government can solve whatever the problem is, as Professor MacKinnon said of Canada’s housing crisis.  Calling Canada’s history of housing construction an “experiment”, something easily discarded and undeserving of respect, to say nothing of being a false misrepresentation of the facts, is what you’d expect a Marxist with an agenda to say.

Actually, the housing crisis has been caused by government: by municipal governments for not making land available in unlimited quantities on which to build new housing; and by the Federal government for bringing in record numbers of immigrants without caring i there was housing for them or not.

American economist and Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Thomas Sowell has written about housing crises, which he first observed in Palo Alto in the 1970s, for over four decades. The cause and the solution are not hard to discover, unless you’re a Marxist out to proved that capitalism doesn’t work.

Get the government out of the way, let the free market work its magic, and the housing crisis will be solved quicker than by ham-fisted government intervention, the cause of the crisis in the first place.

-30-

 

ENFOR in the Advance to Contact

Vincent J. Curtis

15 Aug 23

A few points regarding the employment of an enemy force (ENFOR) on an advance to contact exercise.

If a completely dry exercise employs no ENFOR and the troops just go through the motions, then the weaker the ENFOR and the less ammunition they have, the drier the exercise becomes.  A well-supplied and well-equipped ENFOR can always be told to tone down the violence and sophistication of resistance; but lacking means, they cannot ramp it up.  The tougher the ENFOR, the more the friendly troops – and their commanders – will learn on the exercise; and learning, they gain more satisfaction from what they accomplished.

ENFOR will probably kick butt the first few engagements; but towards the end, the friendly forces, through those bad experiences, will become more cohesive and aware of what they must do, and then they will start to win.  Win legitimately.  There is more satisfaction in knowing you beat a tough opponent in the end than there is in just beating up on an enemy that was too weak to resist in the first place.

ENFOR should be appropriate to the situation.  In an advance to contact, the enemy in a real war would put out a covering force of recce troops, snipers, and sited machine gun nexts.  Recce troops, if found, will try to run away rather than fight to the death.  They won’t engage.  Snipers are an appropriate enemy, and should be dealt with by a section.  Sited machine guns are a platoon objective.  That means that the enemy force should be equipped with machine guns!  In a real war, the defense has a much higher proportion of machine guns in the front line than is normal in a standard ORBAT.  It would be great if ENFOR had a C-6, and even better if it had a couple of C-9s as well.  Now there is some real capability that can be tuned by EXCON.

Smoke grenades can be used to help the friendly forces identify quickly where the fire is coming from.

ENFOR is always outnumbered and always in the front line.  The individual enemy trooper should be expected to fire between three and five times the average amount of ammunition fired on a weekend by a friendly trooper, who, two thirds of the time, is in reserve.  The math is simple.  The less ammunition allotted, the drier the exercise.

If the friendly forces are tasked with clearing a trace of enemy, the trace shouldn’t be wider than a normal company frontage in an advance to contact.  That means no wider than 500 to 1000 m, depending on the terrain.  Given that realistic width and the other requirements of EXCON, ENFOR should be allowed to defend anywhere within that trace.  This means the following: the ENFOR commander on the ground should have the friendly trace in his possession, and within that trace be allowed defend that which is realistically defensible, not just so many bumps per kilometer.  If lots of separate contacts are desired, the terrain that encourages it should be selected, if possible.  These are the beginnings of a force on force exercise.

There is training value also in exercising the tactical sense the of the ENFOR commander, a young lieutenant (perhaps advised by a patient and mature Warrant Officer) who next year will have valuable experience to apply to the defense phase of war.

The last point is communications. Good communications between the ENFOR commander and EXCON is important. ENFOR can adapt quickly if it knows what’s going on, and its logistics needs can be attended to. Enhancing ENFOR effectiveness enhances the training value, to the friendly forces.

An effective advance to contact exercise needs an ENFOR.  That means it needs to be well armed, well equipped, and well supplied.  It needs machine guns, lots of ammunition, good communications, and organic transport.  ENFOR need not be large, but a weak, blind, deaf, and dumb enemy does not offer realistic training to friendly troops.

-30-

Hate Piece in the Hamilton Spectator

Vincent J. Curtis

1 Feb 24

RE: The death of truth and justice. Op-ed by Wayne Poole. The Hamilton Spectator 26 Jan 24.

“Is it fear, ignorance, racism, personal gain, or misplaced beliefs that motivate people to support Donald Trump?” With that opening question, Mr. Poole engages in hate speech.

I support Donald Trump for president of the United States. I think he’s precisely the man the United States needs as president right now, and there are perhaps 75 million Americans who agree with me.  The Spectator was gracious enough to, in September, 2016, publish an op-ed by me explaining why Trump was not the evil man portrayed in mainstream American media; that he wasn’t a racist, he was a New York City liberal.

But Mr. Poole accuses me of being a racist because I support Donald Trump.  He speculates I have something personal to gain out of my support for Mr. Trump, or that I have fears of some sort.  Wayne Poole has never met me, or met millions of other people who think Donald Trump should become the next United States president; but, unmet, he contemptuously dismisses them, and me, with words expressive of hatred.

Poole next asks, “why would a decent, rational human being do so?” He speculates that decency and rationality are in short supply in certain quarters. Mr. Poole says in that paragraph that I, who support Trump, is not decent and is not rational.  These are again contemptuous dismissals expressive of his hatred.

Poole continues, “Trump is supported by white supremacists because they are likeminded in their racism….” As I explained in the 2016 article, Trump is a New York City liberal without a racist bone in his body, but supporters of Trump are white supremacists and racists, according to Mr. Poole.  That would be me Poole is accusing. Poole has no basis for making those accusation again me; and this is yet another example of a burning hatred he expresses throughout the article against people he doesn’t know and has never met, who think Trump should be the next president.

Poole continues, “…the evangelical right, who cut a deal with the devil, in exchange for overturning Roe vs. Wade….” The devil here would be Donald Trump, and Poole’s contempt for, and hatred of, evangelicals makes its first appearance at this point.

Poole continues, “Trump is not a Christian, yet much of Trump’s support comes from the religious right.  To support Trump is to deny Christian values and embrace hypocrisy.  As a semi-literate religiously illiterate bully, Trump has no understanding of love, empathy, compassions, forgiveness, or any of the traits that define Christianity.”

Well, Poole doesn’t know Trump’s private religious beliefs, but Trump certainly respects Christianity and Judaism.  Poole has no access to Trump’s private thoughts, and cannot know if Trump has understanding of love, empathy, etc., or not.  Poole’s claim that “to support Trump is to deny Christian values” is merely an expression of hatred, and also quite in error for Christians believe to “render onto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and render onto God that which is God’s.” to say nothing of redemption and forgiveness of sins.

Poole’s allegations that Trump is semi-literate and religiously illiterate, that he has no understanding of love, empathy, compassion, forgiveness, or any of the traits which define Christianity are quite obviously either untrue or go without evidence, and are simply expressions of Poole’s hatred of Trump and of those who support him, like me. Poole does, however, seem to expose that he himself is not a Christian.  That makes it easier for him to despise and express hatred towards Christians, especially members of the Christian “right.”

Poole next makes allusions to indoctrination, brainwashing, people susceptible to manipulation; to dictators, cult leaders etc. influencing or controlling us. These allusions are intended to cast imprecations against those who support Mr. Trump, like me.

Mr. Poole next brings us Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a famously courageous German theologian who spoke up against the Nazi regime before and during the war, and was finally killed by the Nazis.  Why would Poole need to explain Bonhoeffer’s fate at the hands of the Nazis unless he meant to imply aspersions against those who support Mr. Trump, like me? Oh, “Today’s evil is Trump and his acolytes…” I would be a Trump ‘acolyte,’ and being so, Poole hatefully condemns me as evil. “Only morally bankrupt citizens could support such a morally bankrupt candidate.” Well, 75 million people proved to be morally bankrupt in Poole’s eyes in 2020, which is an expression of hatred against nearly half the American population.

“Donald Trump is liar in chief.” “U.S. history is steeped in fascism.”  “Sheep-like they dutifully line up behind this narcissistic sociopath.” Poole’s expressions of hatred for Trump and those who support him is getting tedious and repetitive, but the seething hatred he feels is on full display.

The article by Mr. Poole is a work of hate literature, and I demand its retraction.

-30-

A copy of this was e-mailed to Mr. Paul Berton, Editor-in-Chief and to Mr. Howard Elliott, last seen as Editorial Page Editor and Managing Editor (hoping someone checked his mailbox), on Thursday, February 1^st and received no response. On Monday morning, February 5^th, I called Mr. Berton at his office number during business hours and left a recorded message, giving my name and number.  As of the evening of February 9^th, I received no reply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPOST: Why Lametti is getting out of Dodge

**REPOST**

Creative lawyering

Vincent J. Curtis

24 Nov 22

The Emergencies Act hearings revealed that under the advice of Attorney-General David Lametti, the Federal cabinet, the Governor-in-Council, could and did disregard the plain English meaning of Section 16 of the Emergency Measures Act (EA).  The wording in the EA specifically ties the meaning of a “Public Order Emergency” to Section 2 of the CSIS Act.

The relevant wording is as follows: 2 (c) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state.

The serious violence provision, when adopted, was guided by the FLQ crisis of 1970.  After a years’ long campaign of placing bombs in mail boxes, cells of the FLQ kidnapped and murdered Quebec Deputy Premier Pierre LaPorte, and kidnapped British trade commissioner James Cross.  This is the image to keep in mind when associating “serious violence” with invoking the War Measures Act, or its successor, the EA.

Before the commission, Lametti argued that given the different purposes of the CSIS Act and the EA, each with different goals, the meaning of 2(c) in the EA is different - from the context in which it has been incorporated into the two acts.  The decision making body is different, for one thing.

Lametti was arguing that Cabinet hands cannot be bound by what CSIS thinks, but its hands can be unbound by what a lawyer thinks.

Let’s take it as read that the government is free to interpret the meaning of 2 (c) independently of CSIS.  What CSIS thinks is irrelevant to the conclusion the government reaches on the basis of the same set of facts.  This would explain the government’s emphasis on violence and that the protests mysteriously became “illegal.”

The Freedom Convoy was non-violent civil disobedience intended to convince the Federal government to lift its recently imposed vaccine mandate on truckers who crossed the U.S. border.  And it was non-violent.  This fact necessitates a creative interpretation of what amounts to violence in order to reach the standard of 2 (c).

Hence, the blockade at the Ambassador Bridge was an act of violence.  Horn-honking was an act of violence.  Unverified claims of fear by Ottawa residents and of acts of intimidation and harassment were all alleged to be acts of violence by the protesters.  “My own staff were harassed,” claimed Lametti under oath.  The reports of guns being in the cabs of the trucks in Ottawa played into the leitmotif of violence and threats of violence.  The fear of a January 6^th style of an invasion of the parliament buildings was widely expressed by individuals hostile to the Convoy’s aims.  The Prime Minster received a death threat!

Given the intent by the government to spread the idea of violence and threats of violence, the friendly reception that Conservative politicians such as Pierre Poilievre and Candice Bergen received while walking amid the protesters undercut the portrayal of violence. These people were subjected to intense and personal criticism by government members.  They were giving aid and comfort to white supremacists, racists, fascists, misogynists, people of “unacceptable views,” disbelievers in science, and takers-up of space, allegedly.  The violent rhetoric all seemed to be coming from the government side, not the Convoy or its friends.

But allegations of violence was not enough.  The economic consequences of the blockade were thrown onto the scale, and we’ve heard ministerial testimony relating what others said to them, that Canada was being made a laughing stock, that the U.S. was getting mad at us, etc.  All unverified, and all irrelevant to the concept of serious violence against persons or property.

Another mystery yet to be resolved by the hearings is how the Convoy came to become an illegal occupation.  Exhaustion with the Convoy’s insistence on its being heard does not in itself make the Convoy illegal or violent against persons or property.  Violating city parking by-laws on Wellington Street, Ottawa, does not make the Convoy an illegal occupation.  Premier Doug Ford of Ontario may have been the first to say that the Convoy was illegal, but that does not make it so.  Nevertheless, government ministers have taken pains to refer to the Convoy as illegal.  Which, let it be said, does not in itself constitute an act or threat of serious violence against persons or property.

Let’s turn now to the business of “for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological objective.”  We can disregard religious and focus on political and ideological.  The Trudeau government is philosophically progressive, which makes everything political a battle of ideologies.  That’s why to discredit the Convoy, the government made all kinds of references to unsavory ideologies, like white supremacism, fascism, racism, etc.  But objectively speaking the Convoy wanted a political goal: a reversal of policy on the vaccine mandate on truckers who cross the border.  The Trudeau government saw the Convoy as a challenge to its power.  Who has power, and who makes the decisions, are central to progressive ideologues.  They believe in rule of experts, precisely as occurred during the COVID pandemic.  The Trudeau government was exercising its power to deliver on the rule by expert, and hence cannot possibly bow to the wishes of truckers, who aren’t experts.

This may go to explain why the Trudeau government never, ever contemplated parlaying with the Convoy.  “This is a democracy, we can’t talk to protesters!  They’re not experts!”  And the campaign to discredit the Convoy served that end, of making parlaying with the Convoy either impossible or unnecessary.

When the Convoy protesters proved tougher and more persistent than the government imagined, it determined, contrary to fact, that the Convoy protest was “directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property.”

Holding to that legal fiction is crucial to the government maintaining that the invocation of the EA was necessary and justified.  That’s what we’re getting from government ministers.

-30-

 

Gaslighting on climate change

Vincent J. Curtis

1 Feb 24

RE: Is climate change linked to cold snaps? A CP article by Jordan Omstead. The Hamilton Spectator 1 Feb 24.

The public is being gaslighted on climate change, and this CP article contains many examples of the practice. First off, if something gets warmer, it doesn’t get cold. Second, climate is not a quantity; hence its change cannot be measured quantitively.  Third, climate is not observable, and because it’s not observable or quantifiable, change in it takes a long time to confirm.  Fourth, global warming is supposed to be driven by minor increases in concentration of a minor atmospheric gas, CO2; and these increases are said to be the drivers of climate change.

It is quite untrue to say, “Scientists agree on how climate change, driven by the burning of fossil fuels…” Scientists don’t agree, which is why there is so much contention over so-called “climate change.”

Cold snaps aren’t allegedly changing climate change trends, but yet, rapid warming in the far north could be linked to outbreaks of cold Arctic air? This is pure gaslighting. If the Arctic is warming, why is its air cold? And spreading sourth?

Jet stream undulation is not well understood, and its existence was explained in the 1970s as due to global cooling.

Extreme Arctic cold flowing into southern latitudes is a challenge to the climate change narrative, and the climate cult resorts to gaslighting to keep up appearances. “Nothing to see here,” they say. Scientists have it all explained, they claim.

Nonsense!

-30-