Friday 5th of June 2020

out of the cold...

Canada Announces Exit From Kyoto Climate Treaty


truancy memories

Howard launches 'anti-warmist manual' for kids



OTTAWA — Canada said on Monday that it would withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Under that accord, major industrialized nations agreed to meet targets for reducing emissions, but mandates were not imposed on developing countries like Brazil, China, India and South Africa. The United States never ratified the treaty.

Canada did commit to the treaty, but the agreement has been fraying. Participants at a United Nations conference in Durban, South Africa, renewed it on Sunday but could not agree on a new accord to replace it.

Instead, the 200 nations represented at the conference agreed to begin a long-term process of negotiating a new treaty, but without resolving a core issue: whether its requirements will apply equally to all countries.

The decision by Canada’s Conservative Party government had long been expected. A Liberal Party government negotiated Canada’s entry into the agreement, but the Conservative government has never disguised its disdain for the treaty.

In announcing the decision, government officials indicated that the possibility of huge fines for Canada’s failure to meet emissions targets had also played a role.

“Kyoto, for Canada, is in the past,” the environment minister, Peter Kent, told reporters shortly after returning from South Africa. He added that Canada would work toward developing an agreement that includes targets for developing nations, particularly China and India.

“What we have to look at is all major emitters,” Mr. Kent said.

Former prime minister John Howard has lent his support to a book aimed at school children which argues the theory of human-induced global warming is a scam.

Last night, the former prime minister launched the publication, the latest from controversial geologist Professor Ian Plimer.

The book, called How to Get Expelled From School, rejects the predominant scientific opinion on climate change.

The book is billed as "an anti-global warmist manual for the younger reader".

Professor Plimer launched the book, a follow up to his book Heaven and Earth, at the Sydney Mining Club.

The new work includes 101 questions which it says students can use to challenge their teachers on climate science.

Professor Plimer says worried parents prompted him to write the book.

"After Heaven and Earth came out I had many parents write to me and say, 'Look, what do we do, our kids are being fed activism. I want my children to have the basics of scientists, I don't want to be fed activism'," he said.

plimer, australia's best know fantasist...

Professor Chris Turney is geologist in the Climate Change Research Centre and Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow in climate change at the University of New South Wales.

“I was in two minds about looking at this book, let alone reviewing it. I had been a real fan of Plimer’s earlier work when he challenged young Earth creationists on their beliefs and showed how they twisted data and used statements out of context to put across a terribly skewed view of our planet. A few years ago I had been sent ‘Heaven and Earth’ to review and had assumed it would do the same with the so-called ‘climate sceptics’. Instead the opposite was the case. ‘How to get expelled from school’ is a follow up, designed to encourage students to question the science of climate change.

Scientists have to explain their work to the public; to inspire, to enthuse; to show the relevance of what they do. In a time of austerity, it is no longer good enough to take the public money, keep busy, out of sight, and hopefully out of mind. Scientists largely communicate with one another through journals few people can afford or understand. As a result, efforts to provide a context for the public and explain the science contained within specialised research articles would normally be applauded. Sadly this is not the case with ‘How to get expelled from school’.

With the declaration on the back of the book that the author is ‘Australia’s best known geologist’, hopes might be considered high that this would be a balanced, well-researched piece of work, showing how the past can inform on how our planet works. Unfortunately, the past is referred to throughout the book but badly. If I were in a less charitable mindset I would suggest the author has learnt lessons from the creationists and applied the same cherry-picking approach to climate change. The best I can write is the author doesn’t seem to understand much of the past at all;...

a book to inspire truants and ignoramuses...

Climate change sceptic Ian Plimer's book "How to Get Expelled from School: A Guide to Climate Change for Pupils, Parents and Punters" arms children with 101 questions to challenge their teachers.

It has been billed as an "anti-warmist manual for the younger reader".

Mr Howard attacked the one-sided teaching of climate change in schools.

"People ought to be worried about what their children are being taught at school," he said.


"It's a matter of real concern".

Prof Plimer said said he had a lot of parents write to him about this topic.

"They were saying that their kids are being fed environmental activism at school, rather than the basics of science, which gives them the ability to analyse activist arguments," he said.

The 250-page book includes a list of questions intended to embarrass poorly prepared teachers.

Questions include: "Is climate change normal?" and "In the last 100 years, has there been global warming and global cooling?".

Read more:

canada dry...

Several countries have criticised Canada for formally withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

A spokesman for France's foreign ministry called the move "bad news for the fight against climate change", a sentiment echoed by other officials.

Peter Kent, Canada's minister of the environment, has said the protocol "does not represent a way forward".

The move, which is legal and was expected, makes Canada the first nation to pull out of the global treaty.

A spokesman for China's foreign ministry told reporters that the decision was "regrettable and flies in the face of the efforts of the international community", Reuters news agency reported.

The protocol, initially adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, is aimed at fighting global warming. Through the agreement, countries like China and India take voluntary, but non-binding steps to reduce their carbon emissions.

Japan's own environment minister, Goshi Hosono, urged Canada to stay in the protocol.

the rest of the world can go fry itself...

Imagine being Canada. Imagine doing the international walk of shame from the Durban conference and later announcing, hungover with chunks in your hair, wearing whatever you picked off a stranger's floor, and a shoe missing, that you don't care, you are walking out of the Kyoto protocol and the rest of the world can go fry itself.

Imagine making this announcement when you're safely home in the nation's capital – a strange little place called Ottawa, the epicentre of grim, a Canadian Luton on a rainy weekend – because you were too chicken to do it in Durban since you knew you would be a laughing stock worldwide.

Imagine being a Canadian waking up to this news.

Imagine being me, being asked by the Guardian to explain why my nice country, famously full of people who spend their days hewing wood and drawing water amid a stream of apologies, has gone all, well, crap. "Is Canada suddenly being run by the Daily Mail?" the editor asked, impeccably courteous as always. Oh you Brits, so charming as you insert the knife.

And the answer is an honest Canadian yes.

not since I retired...

Janette (opening another letter): Oh, this one is from that nice Ian Plimer. You know, the professor of geology that Andrew's always quoting in his columns? He's written a book for kids about climate change and he wants you to launch it.

John: Kid's, eh? Smart move. Get 'em while they're young.

Janette: He doesn't believe in climate science, does he?

John: Of course not.

Janette: And neither do we, do we?

John: Not since I retired.

Janette: Yes. Retired. I'm glad you retired.

John: Yes, I'm glad I retired too. Retiring was the right thing to do.

The phone on the desk rings. John and Janette look at each other with trepidation.

John: If that's Albrechtsen again, tell her I'm not here.

Reluctantly, Mrs Howard answers it.

Janette: Hello? No, Janet. No, you can't just hear his voice again. No, he can't come to the phone and say WorkChoices. No, not even once. No! He isn't here anyway. What do you mean you can sense him? Look, Janet, these calls have to stop. No, I don't want to hear about your dream last night. Janet, Janet, come on now. Stop speaking French. And stop crying. Just stop! Oh, for heaven's sake...

She holds the phone to her chest and looks imploringly at her husband.

John: Oh, all right! (He takes the phone from his wife.) WorkChoices! (He hangs up)

flip-flop in melting snow by justin...

Justin Trudeau’s faux concern for the environment was always hypocritical and duplicitous — but there’s something especially slimy about declaring a climate emergency on Monday and approving an oil pipeline expansion on Tuesday.

Canada’s parliament voted on Monday night to declare a national climate emergency, calling climate change a “real and urgent crisis, driven by human activity.”  The next day, Trudeau’s government green-lighted the environment-destroying Trans Mountain pipeline expansion (TMX), demonstrating either complete indifference to the motion put forward by his own environment minister — or a severe misunderstanding of the words “emergency” and “human activity.”

The so-called “climate emergency” motion was non-binding and meaningless, of course; politicians often expect to be patted on the back for gesture politics — as though merely acknowledging the existence of a problem while taking minimal action to affect any real change is somehow worthy of admiration.


Read more:



Read from top.

ça devient chaud au canada...

Air Canada has been ordered to pay $CAD21,000 ($23,457) to a French-speaking couple who successfully argued the airline violated the "linguistic rights" of Francophones.

Key points:
  • The couple lodged 22 complaints against Air Canada, arguing the airline's signage should also be in French
  • A Federal Court judge found the airline had "not upheld its linguistic obligations" under the country's Official Languages Act
  • The pair previously tried to sue the airline over a mistaken drink order on an international flight


Ontario couple Michel and Lynda Thibodeau lodged 22 complaints against the airline in 2016, according to the BBC, centring on signage on a domestic flight they took.

In a written judgement for the case, which was heard in Canada's Federal Court, the couple argued some of the signs on their flight were written only in English, such as the word "lift" which was engraved on the buckles of their seatbelts without a French-language equivalent.

They also claimed the airline "systemically violated the linguistic rights of Francophones" by giving less prominence to French translations when they were provided, including an emergency exit sign that they said was written in smaller characters than the English-language version.

Federal Court Justice Martine St-Louis sided with the couple, finding that the airline had "not upheld its linguistic obligations" under the country's Official Languages Act, which seeks to ensure English and French are given equal status.

She ordered the airline to write letters of apology to both complainants, and pay them damages totalling $CAD21,000 ($23,457).

"Signage must be of equal quality," Mr Thibodeau told Canadian broadcaster CBC after the ruling.

"My expectation is that within a couple of months, we will be able to fly on any Air Canada plane, and finally signage will be in both official languages."


Read more:


Read from top.