Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Who You Would Destroy, You Must First Defund
...is I think how that one goes. If the Tories were really sceptical, the logical course would be to support The Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL) , as it is collecting data on the changing climate of the Far North. Instead, there will be a gap of several years until their High Arctic research station is complete, and by that time all the scientists capable of running it will have left the country. So: a shiny empty building in he middle of the tundra. Tory environmental policy in a nutshell.
Prominent Catholic: Citizenship Guide Not Non-Gay Enough!
Catholic Insight's Fr. Alphonse de Valk say:...we suggest that in the next printing the picture of “gay” activist Mark Tewkesbury which is still in the guide, be replaced by one of our gold medallists of the Vancouver 2010 Olympics.
Presumably one of the non-gay ones, which may rule out the women's hockey team. My wife--who teaches skating--tells me Scott Moir is probably okay ( he wants to join a police S.W.A.T team, which is a usually good sign, although on the downside he obviously likes dancing), but the rest of our figure skating team is a writeoff.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
All Hail The Magnificently Ugly Baribusa
God you're sexxxy! And those horns are so sick the baribusa canIMPALE ITS OWN HEAD ON THEM!!!
PS. I am avoiding any "mother-in-law" cheap shots, but if your pet name for mom is The War Pig I'm sure a few will occur to you naturally.
Monday, March 08, 2010
Wayne LaPierre Is Sooo Happy
As my friend and colleague Dave Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute in Colorado, astutely noted, "Repeal of the Canadian registry would be of tremendous global significance. Repeal would also shatter the claim by the Canadian gun prohibition lobby that gun control in Canada is an irreversible ratchet."
This is huge on the world stage and made all the more significant as a backdrop in the pending debate on the United Nations' global gun ban.
Wayne LePierre, author of the above, is EVP of the National Rifle Association. It's worth noting that he thinks Bill C-391 will pass 3rd reading with roughly the same votes it got last time around.
This is huge on the world stage and made all the more significant as a backdrop in the pending debate on the United Nations' global gun ban.
Wayne LePierre, author of the above, is EVP of the National Rifle Association. It's worth noting that he thinks Bill C-391 will pass 3rd reading with roughly the same votes it got last time around.
Torture Whistle Blower's Carr Center Position Was Funded By Tobacco Company Front Group--And Iggy Approved The Money!
I am not sure that the following should sway anyone one way or another re Amir Attaran's claim the Canadian government collaborated with Afghan security forces to have prisoners tortured in order to gather intelligence, but it is plenty weird and intriguing and I thought I would write it up.
Amir Attaran is (or was) a member of the Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM) advisory board. Africa Fighting Malaria is a group associated with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and more specifically with think tank "scientist" extraordinaire Roger Bate, who is the group's inspiration and driving force. Even more importantly, when Attaran was at Harvard (the Carr Center) his position was funded by a grant from Africa Fighting Malaria.
Now, what's wrong with that? Well, whenever you hear the name "American Enterprise Institute" your bullshit meter should start twitching just from general principles. These guys are one of America's best known Conservative think tanks, and have, for example, led the charge against meaningful climate change legislation south of the border.
But, again, there's a more specific story to be told, and a strange one too.
Roger Bate's career as a think tank scientist extends back several decades, but his most notable exploit is the creation of Africa Fighting Malaria. Put briefly, and as Mr. Bate put it fairly explicitly to Philip Morris back in 1998, the group was created to be a front generating a counter-discourse intended to discourage further regulation of the tobacco industry. To quote Adam Sarvana, in one of the very few MSM articles I've seen written on Mr. Bate:
Now operating out of the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), [Roger]Bate’s signature coup to date has been to spread the myth that environmentalists, by preventing the use of the pesticide DDT (Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane) to kill mosquitoes in developing countries, have heartlessly caused millions of malaria deaths worldwide. It needs to be said at the outset that this argument is untrue. While some groups have pressed hard to find alternatives, there is little evidence that a concerted effort to abolish anti-malaria DDT spraying ever occurred. Of the few environmental organizations that even pay attention to pesticide use overseas, the ones with any clout all support a clause in the Stockholm Convention that allows DDT use for public health reasons.
[...]
The latter is of particular importance in Bate’s case. His most visible contribution to his chosen cause has been to use the unlikely twin forces of malaria and DDT – both absent from the United States for decades, but facts of life in much of the developing world – to pit potential allies in regulatory efforts, especially environmentalists and public health advocates, against each other in an effort to draw their fire away from regulated industries, including tobacco. In a funding proposal to Philip Morris laying out his vision of a so-called Malaria Strategy, Bate wrote circa 1998 that the “opponents” of tobacco “are quite disparate, yet we have not divided them and shown each how the other’s agenda is damaging their own.” To be more successful, the document said, “we need to . . . [p]ick issues on which we can divide our opponents and win. Make our case on our terms, not on the terms of our opponents – malaria prevention is a good example. Show our opponents where their alleged allies are harming their cause[.]”
The proposal laid out a comprehensive plan, including the formation of a front group to push the idea that Western experts and activists were focusing on the wrong issue. The central argument of the Malaria Strategy, he wrote, would be that “environmental regulations often harm public health in the West and Western policies often harm health in Less Developed Countries.” In other words, the World Health Organization (WHO) and other regulatory bodies shouldn’t even have time to think about regulating American and British tobacco, because the scourge of malaria demanded more immediate attention. Thus emerged Bate’s thesis, which he continues to promote as a proxy for his deeper anti-regulatory agenda: That out-of-touch bureaucrats and misguided environmentalists are ignoring malaria sufferers, either because of incompetence or spoiled-rich fears about comparatively harmless risks like second-hand smoking, and are therefore not to be trusted.
Now, if this sounds too wild to be true, it can all be pretty thoroughly referenced. The Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, kept at the University of California, San Francisco,
...holds 40 million pages of secret corporate memos, privileged legal communications and other documents obtained through discovery processes from a decade of successful lawsuits alleging that the industry had lied about tobacco’s health effects. The documents demonstrate how the industry pioneered modern techniques for manipulating politics, scientific research and public opinion. As a result, the library is something of a Rosetta Stone that reaches beyond the tobacco industry to assist anyone seeking to decipher how business, politics and media function.
One of the first people to really go trolling through these documents on the trail of Mr. Bate was climate blogger Eli Rabbet. It's thanks to him that, for example, we know that at some point Phillip Morris UK was paying Roger Bate £10K per month for his services.
So this is who Mr. Attaran has worked with in the past--here's him talking up DDT and trashing environmentalists--and whose position, back in 2002-2003, was
...funded through a secret anonymous grant, that was given to Roger Bate's Africa Fight Malaria group, and then to Harvard.
Okay, so how does Michael Ignatieff play into all of this? Well, in 2003 then he was director of The Carr Center, and when a stink was raised over Mr. Attaran's anonymous funding sources (which were thought at the time to be linked to "Big Pharma"), he was forced to look into the matter and respond:
Before accepting any funding for projects, the Carr Center does necessary due diligence upon the source of the funding. This was true in the case of Amir Attaran, as it is with all of our research funding. When appropriate, we examine not only the immediate source of the funds, but the original source as well. In Amir Attaran's case, the direct source of the funding for his tenure at the Carr Center was Africa Fighting Malaria, but we did not stop our due diligence there. Instead, we required that the specific funding supporting Dr. Attaran's research be traced to its original source(s). When the individual donor who was the to be the source of the funding sought to maintain anonymity, we indicated to AFM that we would then be unable to accept the funding. Appreciating our need for due diligence, AFM then agreed that his/her identity could be revealed to the two of us and to the individual in the Harvard University Administration responsible for due diligence on donors wishing to remain anonymous. Due diligence by both the Carr Center and the University was done on this individual. Of course, we cannot provide you with a name because of our respect for donor requests for anonymity, but - with regard to your specific concerns - you have our assurances that we know this individual's identity, that we have done due diligence upon the source of the money, and that it is not from the pharmaceutical industry nor from any source that would involve a conflict of interest. Neither AFM nor the anonymous donor have imposed any restrictions whatever on Dr. Attaran's research. We trust that this addresses your concerns.
In other words, Iggy investigated the source of Attaran's funding, and despite its dubious pedigree, took the money.
Now, I don't know what this says about Attaran's claim re Afghan prisoner transfers. Probably nothing. And I would say in both his and Iggy's defense that Bate and the AFM have conned a lot of smart people. James Lovelock comes to mind. Bate is not at all like Marc Morano, who looks greasy and sweaty even when he isn't doing anything evil. No, nobody's even heard of Bate; he's smooth and silent, like a barracuda swimming through the ocean at night.
But, Iggy, a word of advice. When anything associated with the American Enterprise Institute comes along waving money--or anyone connected with "think tanks" that have names like "The Liberty Foundation" or "The Freedom initiative"--run away. They're flogging bullshit.
And if Roger Bate gets within a mile of you, run away screaming.
PS. Attaran responds to some of the allegations re Iggy's defense of his funding here. Although nobody seems to have raised the "big tobacco" connection as yet.
PPS. A big welcome to National Newswatch readers.
PPPS. It has been pointed out to me that my original title suggests that Mr. Attaran's current position, and his research into the Afghan detainee issue, was funded by Africa Fighting Malaria. That was not the intent and I have changed the title to remove the implication. In fact, as I note, the two issues are not connected other than I found out about the second while reading about the first.
Amir Attaran is (or was) a member of the Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM) advisory board. Africa Fighting Malaria is a group associated with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and more specifically with think tank "scientist" extraordinaire Roger Bate, who is the group's inspiration and driving force. Even more importantly, when Attaran was at Harvard (the Carr Center) his position was funded by a grant from Africa Fighting Malaria.
Now, what's wrong with that? Well, whenever you hear the name "American Enterprise Institute" your bullshit meter should start twitching just from general principles. These guys are one of America's best known Conservative think tanks, and have, for example, led the charge against meaningful climate change legislation south of the border.
But, again, there's a more specific story to be told, and a strange one too.
Roger Bate's career as a think tank scientist extends back several decades, but his most notable exploit is the creation of Africa Fighting Malaria. Put briefly, and as Mr. Bate put it fairly explicitly to Philip Morris back in 1998, the group was created to be a front generating a counter-discourse intended to discourage further regulation of the tobacco industry. To quote Adam Sarvana, in one of the very few MSM articles I've seen written on Mr. Bate:
Now operating out of the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), [Roger]Bate’s signature coup to date has been to spread the myth that environmentalists, by preventing the use of the pesticide DDT (Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane) to kill mosquitoes in developing countries, have heartlessly caused millions of malaria deaths worldwide. It needs to be said at the outset that this argument is untrue. While some groups have pressed hard to find alternatives, there is little evidence that a concerted effort to abolish anti-malaria DDT spraying ever occurred. Of the few environmental organizations that even pay attention to pesticide use overseas, the ones with any clout all support a clause in the Stockholm Convention that allows DDT use for public health reasons.
[...]
The latter is of particular importance in Bate’s case. His most visible contribution to his chosen cause has been to use the unlikely twin forces of malaria and DDT – both absent from the United States for decades, but facts of life in much of the developing world – to pit potential allies in regulatory efforts, especially environmentalists and public health advocates, against each other in an effort to draw their fire away from regulated industries, including tobacco. In a funding proposal to Philip Morris laying out his vision of a so-called Malaria Strategy, Bate wrote circa 1998 that the “opponents” of tobacco “are quite disparate, yet we have not divided them and shown each how the other’s agenda is damaging their own.” To be more successful, the document said, “we need to . . . [p]ick issues on which we can divide our opponents and win. Make our case on our terms, not on the terms of our opponents – malaria prevention is a good example. Show our opponents where their alleged allies are harming their cause[.]”
The proposal laid out a comprehensive plan, including the formation of a front group to push the idea that Western experts and activists were focusing on the wrong issue. The central argument of the Malaria Strategy, he wrote, would be that “environmental regulations often harm public health in the West and Western policies often harm health in Less Developed Countries.” In other words, the World Health Organization (WHO) and other regulatory bodies shouldn’t even have time to think about regulating American and British tobacco, because the scourge of malaria demanded more immediate attention. Thus emerged Bate’s thesis, which he continues to promote as a proxy for his deeper anti-regulatory agenda: That out-of-touch bureaucrats and misguided environmentalists are ignoring malaria sufferers, either because of incompetence or spoiled-rich fears about comparatively harmless risks like second-hand smoking, and are therefore not to be trusted.
Now, if this sounds too wild to be true, it can all be pretty thoroughly referenced. The Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, kept at the University of California, San Francisco,
...holds 40 million pages of secret corporate memos, privileged legal communications and other documents obtained through discovery processes from a decade of successful lawsuits alleging that the industry had lied about tobacco’s health effects. The documents demonstrate how the industry pioneered modern techniques for manipulating politics, scientific research and public opinion. As a result, the library is something of a Rosetta Stone that reaches beyond the tobacco industry to assist anyone seeking to decipher how business, politics and media function.
One of the first people to really go trolling through these documents on the trail of Mr. Bate was climate blogger Eli Rabbet. It's thanks to him that, for example, we know that at some point Phillip Morris UK was paying Roger Bate £10K per month for his services.
So this is who Mr. Attaran has worked with in the past--here's him talking up DDT and trashing environmentalists--and whose position, back in 2002-2003, was
...funded through a secret anonymous grant, that was given to Roger Bate's Africa Fight Malaria group, and then to Harvard.
Okay, so how does Michael Ignatieff play into all of this? Well, in 2003 then he was director of The Carr Center, and when a stink was raised over Mr. Attaran's anonymous funding sources (which were thought at the time to be linked to "Big Pharma"), he was forced to look into the matter and respond:
Before accepting any funding for projects, the Carr Center does necessary due diligence upon the source of the funding. This was true in the case of Amir Attaran, as it is with all of our research funding. When appropriate, we examine not only the immediate source of the funds, but the original source as well. In Amir Attaran's case, the direct source of the funding for his tenure at the Carr Center was Africa Fighting Malaria, but we did not stop our due diligence there. Instead, we required that the specific funding supporting Dr. Attaran's research be traced to its original source(s). When the individual donor who was the to be the source of the funding sought to maintain anonymity, we indicated to AFM that we would then be unable to accept the funding. Appreciating our need for due diligence, AFM then agreed that his/her identity could be revealed to the two of us and to the individual in the Harvard University Administration responsible for due diligence on donors wishing to remain anonymous. Due diligence by both the Carr Center and the University was done on this individual. Of course, we cannot provide you with a name because of our respect for donor requests for anonymity, but - with regard to your specific concerns - you have our assurances that we know this individual's identity, that we have done due diligence upon the source of the money, and that it is not from the pharmaceutical industry nor from any source that would involve a conflict of interest. Neither AFM nor the anonymous donor have imposed any restrictions whatever on Dr. Attaran's research. We trust that this addresses your concerns.
In other words, Iggy investigated the source of Attaran's funding, and despite its dubious pedigree, took the money.
Now, I don't know what this says about Attaran's claim re Afghan prisoner transfers. Probably nothing. And I would say in both his and Iggy's defense that Bate and the AFM have conned a lot of smart people. James Lovelock comes to mind. Bate is not at all like Marc Morano, who looks greasy and sweaty even when he isn't doing anything evil. No, nobody's even heard of Bate; he's smooth and silent, like a barracuda swimming through the ocean at night.
But, Iggy, a word of advice. When anything associated with the American Enterprise Institute comes along waving money--or anyone connected with "think tanks" that have names like "The Liberty Foundation" or "The Freedom initiative"--run away. They're flogging bullshit.
And if Roger Bate gets within a mile of you, run away screaming.
PS. Attaran responds to some of the allegations re Iggy's defense of his funding here. Although nobody seems to have raised the "big tobacco" connection as yet.
PPS. A big welcome to National Newswatch readers.
PPPS. It has been pointed out to me that my original title suggests that Mr. Attaran's current position, and his research into the Afghan detainee issue, was funded by Africa Fighting Malaria. That was not the intent and I have changed the title to remove the implication. In fact, as I note, the two issues are not connected other than I found out about the second while reading about the first.
Sunday, March 07, 2010
Notable For Its Absence
Has any mention been made at the PCPO AGM of Hudak's leadership-race promise to abolish the OHRC? I've mentioned previously that Tim seemed to have thrown that one under the bus as a political loser. Perhaps I have been confirmed.
Saturday, March 06, 2010
The Meaning Of Leeds-Grenville
Tim Hudak:
"It's a very strong message from the eastern Ontario ridings (that) they're looking for change," Hudak said Friday as he arrived at the party's annual meeting in Ottawa – his first since taking the party's helm last spring.
Some dude from Free Dominion:
My riding is on auto pilot with regards to voting - the Tories could have ran a dead chicken and still won.
I believe the dude.
"It's a very strong message from the eastern Ontario ridings (that) they're looking for change," Hudak said Friday as he arrived at the party's annual meeting in Ottawa – his first since taking the party's helm last spring.
Some dude from Free Dominion:
My riding is on auto pilot with regards to voting - the Tories could have ran a dead chicken and still won.
I believe the dude.
Iggy And The Christians
Specifically, Iggy and his attempts at outreach into various sectors of the Canadian Christian community:
On coming into the Liberal leadership, however, [Iggy] recognized that, in the past few decades, some of his party members had become increasingly derisive of evangelical Christians -- and, to a lesser extent, Roman Catholics. That vitriol was especially directed at Christian politicians with Conservative or Reform party connections. Leaders like Stockwell Day were described as "scary," especially with respect to their pro-life or pro-creationist viewpoints.
[...]
The decline in the number of Liberal federal seats in rural and small-city Ontario could be traced, statistically, to the favour with which evangelicals were viewing the Conservatives. That happened especially after the merger of the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties.
So Iggy has asked Toronto-area MP John McKay to act as his agent among the believers:
While articulating strongly why he believes evangelical and Catholic Christians should be supportive of the federal Liberals, McKay took care not to be corrosively critical of the Conservatives. He did caution, however, that what he sees as the current Conservative penchant to "lock up the pro-Israel and evangelical votes," as heading in a "dangerous" direction.
[...]
An interesting challenge for McKay has been to build networks with Christians who are unhappy with Ignatieff's insistence that maternal and child health in less developed countries should include support for abortion and contraception.
[...]
Earlier reports had indicated that Liberal strategists had recommended Ignatieff take a pro-abortion stance as a means of establishing a wedge issue among Conservatives.
I blame Kinsella and that damn doll of his.
On coming into the Liberal leadership, however, [Iggy] recognized that, in the past few decades, some of his party members had become increasingly derisive of evangelical Christians -- and, to a lesser extent, Roman Catholics. That vitriol was especially directed at Christian politicians with Conservative or Reform party connections. Leaders like Stockwell Day were described as "scary," especially with respect to their pro-life or pro-creationist viewpoints.
[...]
The decline in the number of Liberal federal seats in rural and small-city Ontario could be traced, statistically, to the favour with which evangelicals were viewing the Conservatives. That happened especially after the merger of the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties.
So Iggy has asked Toronto-area MP John McKay to act as his agent among the believers:
While articulating strongly why he believes evangelical and Catholic Christians should be supportive of the federal Liberals, McKay took care not to be corrosively critical of the Conservatives. He did caution, however, that what he sees as the current Conservative penchant to "lock up the pro-Israel and evangelical votes," as heading in a "dangerous" direction.
[...]
An interesting challenge for McKay has been to build networks with Christians who are unhappy with Ignatieff's insistence that maternal and child health in less developed countries should include support for abortion and contraception.
[...]
Earlier reports had indicated that Liberal strategists had recommended Ignatieff take a pro-abortion stance as a means of establishing a wedge issue among Conservatives.
I blame Kinsella and that damn doll of his.
Friday, March 05, 2010
The Institute Of Physics Regrets...
The IOP wriggles a bit more, clarifying their original clarification. I've juxtaposed some of the March 2 vs. March 5 passages:
March 2:
The Institute’s statement, which has been published both on the Institute’s website and the Committee’s, has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming.
March 5:
We regret that our submission has been seized upon by some individuals to imply that IOP does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming.
March 2:
That is not the case. The Institute’s position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing – and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change. More information about IOP’s views can be found on its website here.
March 5:
IOP’s position on global warming is clear: the basic science is well established and there is no doubt that climate change is happening and that we should be taking action to address it now.
This passage from March 2:
It reflected our belief that the open exchange of data, procedures and materials is fundamental to the scientific process. From the information already in the public domain it appears that these principles have been put at risk in the present case, and that this has undermined the trust that is placed in the scientific process.
...is replaced by something milder on March 5th:
The evidence to the Committee was focused however on the need to maintain the integrity, openness and unbiased nature of the scientific process. The key points it makes are ones to which we are deeply committed – ie that science should be communicated openly and reviewed in an unbiased way. However much we sympathise with the way in which CRU researchers have been confronted with hostile requests for information, we believe the case for openness remains just as strong.
And a bit on procedures missing from the March 2 edition:
The preparation of the evidence followed the process we always use for agreeing documents of this kind. We asked the Energy Sub-Group of our Science Board to prepare the evidence, based on their analysis of the material which is already in the public domain. The evidence was then circulated around Science Board, which is a formal committee of the Institute with delegated authority from its trustees to oversee its policy work, and approved.
The actual submission, mind you (and I haven't gone through it thoroughly), does NOT seem to have changed. They are still calling for a broader inquiry to cover those researchers not associated with CRU but who might have conspired with them.
March 2:
The Institute’s statement, which has been published both on the Institute’s website and the Committee’s, has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming.
March 5:
We regret that our submission has been seized upon by some individuals to imply that IOP does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming.
March 2:
That is not the case. The Institute’s position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing – and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change. More information about IOP’s views can be found on its website here.
March 5:
IOP’s position on global warming is clear: the basic science is well established and there is no doubt that climate change is happening and that we should be taking action to address it now.
This passage from March 2:
It reflected our belief that the open exchange of data, procedures and materials is fundamental to the scientific process. From the information already in the public domain it appears that these principles have been put at risk in the present case, and that this has undermined the trust that is placed in the scientific process.
...is replaced by something milder on March 5th:
The evidence to the Committee was focused however on the need to maintain the integrity, openness and unbiased nature of the scientific process. The key points it makes are ones to which we are deeply committed – ie that science should be communicated openly and reviewed in an unbiased way. However much we sympathise with the way in which CRU researchers have been confronted with hostile requests for information, we believe the case for openness remains just as strong.
And a bit on procedures missing from the March 2 edition:
The preparation of the evidence followed the process we always use for agreeing documents of this kind. We asked the Energy Sub-Group of our Science Board to prepare the evidence, based on their analysis of the material which is already in the public domain. The evidence was then circulated around Science Board, which is a formal committee of the Institute with delegated authority from its trustees to oversee its policy work, and approved.
The actual submission, mind you (and I haven't gone through it thoroughly), does NOT seem to have changed. They are still calling for a broader inquiry to cover those researchers not associated with CRU but who might have conspired with them.
Tough On Crime, Tough On The Criminal Justice System
Put more people in jail for longer; pay the jailer less. And watch the sparks fly, I suppose.
IOP Statement Authors Still Anonymous
So where we left this story was: the U.K.'s Institute of Physics wrote an extremely critical statement in regards to the University of East Anglia's handling of FOI requests from climate change sceptics, and submitted it to the U.K. Science and Technology Committee, who have been investigating various issues behind the CRU hack. Later they issued a "clarification" of the statement designed to make it sound a little less nutty. But when asked who the actual authors of the original piece were, the IOP clammed up, other than to say they were part of the IOP's energy sub-group...whose members they refused to identify!
As W. Connolley wrote, what had mostly likely happened was that the energy sub-group was "hijacked" by deniers, who then composed their statement and managed to steer it through the larger administrative structure of the IOP and land it on the desk of the committee.
And then it was was discovered by me (I think), here on this blog, that the identity of one of the sub-group's members was one Peter Gill, who had more than a sniff of denialism about him.
Cue the U.K. Gaurdian's David Adam: yeah, it turns out Peter Gill is a Warmocaust Collusionist and, yeah, he was "involved" in the preparation of the IOP document, but the IOP won't get more specific, and still won't say who the other sub-group members are. Their reasoning is, to put it mildly, bizarre:
The institute supplied a statement from an anonymous member of its science board, which said: "The institute should feel relaxed about the process by which it generated what is, anyway, a statement of the obvious." It added: "The points [the submission] makes are ones which we continue to support, that science should be practised openly and in an unbiased way. However much we sympathise with the way in which CRU researchers have been confronted with hostile requests for information, we believe the case for openness remains just as strong."
...which is to say that the the IOP feels comfortable issuing anonymous demands for scientific openness.
More coverage here.
As W. Connolley wrote, what had mostly likely happened was that the energy sub-group was "hijacked" by deniers, who then composed their statement and managed to steer it through the larger administrative structure of the IOP and land it on the desk of the committee.
And then it was was discovered by me (I think), here on this blog, that the identity of one of the sub-group's members was one Peter Gill, who had more than a sniff of denialism about him.
Cue the U.K. Gaurdian's David Adam: yeah, it turns out Peter Gill is a Warmocaust Collusionist and, yeah, he was "involved" in the preparation of the IOP document, but the IOP won't get more specific, and still won't say who the other sub-group members are. Their reasoning is, to put it mildly, bizarre:
The institute supplied a statement from an anonymous member of its science board, which said: "The institute should feel relaxed about the process by which it generated what is, anyway, a statement of the obvious." It added: "The points [the submission] makes are ones which we continue to support, that science should be practised openly and in an unbiased way. However much we sympathise with the way in which CRU researchers have been confronted with hostile requests for information, we believe the case for openness remains just as strong."
...which is to say that the the IOP feels comfortable issuing anonymous demands for scientific openness.
More coverage here.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Throne Speech Indicates Move Towards Income Splitting?
While the details will not be determined until the budget or respective legislation is tabled, we are encouraged by government’s commitment to strengthen the Universal Child Care Benefit for “sole-support, single-parent families.” Dave Quist, Executive Director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada states, “this appears to be the first significant step towards family income splitting.”
And here's the official throne speech "word cloud", courtesy of the NP:
If I were a small gov. Conservative, I'd be worried.
And here's the official throne speech "word cloud", courtesy of the NP:
If I were a small gov. Conservative, I'd be worried.
I Would Find It Hard To Sing That
Apparently, the original 2nd line of Canada's national anthem was "True patriot love thou dost in us command," which does not trip lightly off the modern tongue. In any case, count me among the 8% of Canadians (in this not particularly scientific poll) who totally don't care, although if push came to shove I'd prefer if the Hendrix performance was made the official version. You can just hum along to it or play air-guitar.
Tony Clement, however, is bullshitting:
"The prime minister has heard from some Canadians on this and I think it’s better to have a fulsome debate, rather than just shuffling it off," Clement said Wednesday.
Clement said he has heard complaints from some of his constituents as recently as last week.
"I think this has been rolling around for a while actually," said the MP from Parry Sound, Ont.
"Maybe it was a bit subterranean . . . . (But) we got so used to singing O Canada at the Olympics, maybe it became more top of mind, I don’t know."
Yeah, after jobs, unemployment, the environment, transfer payments, the deficit, Afghanistan, reasonable accommodation, the seal hunt, what's gonna happen next on "Lost", the fate of the Salt Spring Island brown nosed ferret, the Theodore Sask. mayoral race...practically everyone in the nation has been sweating over ways to make our already mondo boring national anthem even less singable.
What a time waster! And how is it possible for the Harper gov. to be even more idea-less than they were last go-round?
Tony Clement, however, is bullshitting:
"The prime minister has heard from some Canadians on this and I think it’s better to have a fulsome debate, rather than just shuffling it off," Clement said Wednesday.
Clement said he has heard complaints from some of his constituents as recently as last week.
"I think this has been rolling around for a while actually," said the MP from Parry Sound, Ont.
"Maybe it was a bit subterranean . . . . (But) we got so used to singing O Canada at the Olympics, maybe it became more top of mind, I don’t know."
Yeah, after jobs, unemployment, the environment, transfer payments, the deficit, Afghanistan, reasonable accommodation, the seal hunt, what's gonna happen next on "Lost", the fate of the Salt Spring Island brown nosed ferret, the Theodore Sask. mayoral race...practically everyone in the nation has been sweating over ways to make our already mondo boring national anthem even less singable.
What a time waster! And how is it possible for the Harper gov. to be even more idea-less than they were last go-round?
KAIROS Struggles On
I don't know why so much of the activity on this issue seems to be coming from the West Coast, but kudos to the Salt Spring United Church for not letting go of the bone:
This coming Sunday, March 7 at Salt Spring United Church, there will be a photo event to appeal for restoration of funding to Kairos from CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency).
[...]
The photo of the banner and supporting group, plus an accompanying article, will probably appear in the following week’s Driftwood. This will be forwarded on to CIDA.
This coming Sunday, March 7 at Salt Spring United Church, there will be a photo event to appeal for restoration of funding to Kairos from CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency).
[...]
The photo of the banner and supporting group, plus an accompanying article, will probably appear in the following week’s Driftwood. This will be forwarded on to CIDA.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Kairos Controversey Sideswipes B.C. B&B
If you want to see how toxic Jason Kenney's musings re KAIROS and anti-semitism have been, here's the owner Kairos Guest Suite near Comox, who feel's its necessary to tell folks that they are not those people.
Minister Kenney, you must be so proud.
Minister Kenney, you must be so proud.
U.K. Institute Of Physics Sort Of Retracts
Of all the nutty submissions placed before the U.K. Science and Technology Committee, this stem-winder from the U.K. Institute of Physics--which seemed to suggest, among other things, that there had been wrong-doing not only among the UEA's Climate Research Unit (CRU, headed by Phil Jones), but among the international scientists that swapped emails with the CRU team--was the most disturbing. It sounded like a prank, or perhaps the work of a small group within the IoP that had hijacked the organization to send out denialist literature under its name (remember the infiltration of the APS?).
At the moment, option number two looks most likely, for yesterday the IoP felt the need to issue a reinterpretation of their original statement:
The Institute's statement, which has been published both on the Institute's website and the Committee's, has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming.
That is not the case. The Institute's position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing – and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change.
The U.K. Gaurdian has written about this sudden turnabout; the best bit from their story:
The institute statement says its submission was approved by its science board, a formal committee of experts that oversees its policy work.
The Guardian has been unable to find a member of the board that supports the submission. Two of the scientists listed as members said they had declined to comment on a draft submission prepared by the institute, because they were not climate experts and had not read the UEA emails. Others would not comment or did not respond to enquiries.
An institute spokesperson said the submission was "strongly supported" by three members of the board. "All members were invited to comment. Only a few did, all concerned approved [the submission] unanimously."
So, nobody can find the people that wrote the submission??? The bottom line--as reported by Stoat (that's Connelley)--seems to be that a small "Energy sub-group" within the IoP science group managed to slip this stuff passed the larger IoP leadership. You can read about their "sceptical" credentials at Stoat's place.
And it seems the reinterpretation has been inspired by a backlash from within the IoP membership that is, even now, being conveyed to IoP poobahs behind the scenes. But I would agree that it isn't really enough. The story of the IoP condemnation of CRU has gone international; the organization has been made fools of, and their new statement amounts to a bit of "we didn't really mean what we clearly said" arse covering. They should issue a complete and thorough retraction of their first statement, and an apology to everyone involved.
PS. One of the IOP's mysterious Energy sub-group members appears to be Peter Gill. His sceptics creds include supporting Nigel Lawson's efforts to address the IOP. Also, Feroze Duggan appears to have been a member of the group until at least 2008. Also, Dr John Roberts of University of Sheffield was recently a part of the sub-group, though perhaps not currently.
At the moment, option number two looks most likely, for yesterday the IoP felt the need to issue a reinterpretation of their original statement:
The Institute's statement, which has been published both on the Institute's website and the Committee's, has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming.
That is not the case. The Institute's position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing – and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change.
The U.K. Gaurdian has written about this sudden turnabout; the best bit from their story:
The institute statement says its submission was approved by its science board, a formal committee of experts that oversees its policy work.
The Guardian has been unable to find a member of the board that supports the submission. Two of the scientists listed as members said they had declined to comment on a draft submission prepared by the institute, because they were not climate experts and had not read the UEA emails. Others would not comment or did not respond to enquiries.
An institute spokesperson said the submission was "strongly supported" by three members of the board. "All members were invited to comment. Only a few did, all concerned approved [the submission] unanimously."
So, nobody can find the people that wrote the submission??? The bottom line--as reported by Stoat (that's Connelley)--seems to be that a small "Energy sub-group" within the IoP science group managed to slip this stuff passed the larger IoP leadership. You can read about their "sceptical" credentials at Stoat's place.
And it seems the reinterpretation has been inspired by a backlash from within the IoP membership that is, even now, being conveyed to IoP poobahs behind the scenes. But I would agree that it isn't really enough. The story of the IoP condemnation of CRU has gone international; the organization has been made fools of, and their new statement amounts to a bit of "we didn't really mean what we clearly said" arse covering. They should issue a complete and thorough retraction of their first statement, and an apology to everyone involved.
PS. One of the IOP's mysterious Energy sub-group members appears to be Peter Gill. His sceptics creds include supporting Nigel Lawson's efforts to address the IOP. Also, Feroze Duggan appears to have been a member of the group until at least 2008. Also, Dr John Roberts of University of Sheffield was recently a part of the sub-group, though perhaps not currently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)