Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Linda Wants US to Pay Instead...

Linda McQuaig has issued a leftist diatribe lambasting the Canadian Government for its stance on Kyoto and Global warming. If you can make your way through the layers of innuendo, appeals to authority, character assassination and argument from intimidation you find yourself staring into the vacuous pit of hysteria and fear induced nonsense that makes up her “article”.

Beginning with the political McQuaig states that a full 70% of Canadians are “Harper’s (Conservative) enemies”. Well if you crunch the numbers in exactly the same fashion as dear Linda you will quickly surmise that 70% of Canadians harbor extreme antagonism toward the NDP. 81% hate Liberals, 94% loathe the Bloc and 96% would rather be dead than caught supporting Elizabeth Mae and the Greens.

Linda, get real.

For those that are paying attention, this is nothing more than the way our multi-party democracy works, but I must admit it is fun to watch the Left twist itself in knots of opposition, when they supported 38% and 40% Liberal majorities as “democratic” and “clear mandates from the Canadian people” for years.  The hypocracy is astounding.

Getting to the bones of Linda’s contention we are once again sucked into the quagmire of the global warming idiocy. McQuaig claims that Cana’s withdrawal from the Kyoto accord has “wreaked havoc” with the process to stop climate change and she implies that Canada’s abandonment of the accord will directly harm the poorest of the poor in Africa. What nonsense.

One simple search on Wikipedia allowed me to compile enough factual information to decimate McQuaig’s assumptions. Canada’s carbon footprint accounts for 1.8% of the world’s total, a number easily surpassed by 3 African countries (South Africa – 1.45%, Nigeria - .32% and Morocco - .16%) none of which are bound by the accord to any Carbon limits.

But never mind these small fries, India who’s Carbon footprint is 5.78% of the world total and China (23.33%) are also not impacted in any way shape or form. Yet somehow Canada is the straw breaking this camel’s back?

Perhaps the thing wreaking havoc is the fact that none of this climate hysteria has been proven and in fact “scientists” have been caught red handed trying to suppress information or game their statistics to match their wild hypotheses (see “Climategate and Climategate 2.0”). This duplicity coupled with the simple lack of any significant actual impact makes a lie out of the assumption that the nations of the world, much less Canada NEED to do something to stop “climate change”. http://www.climategate.com/

McQuaig calls Canada a “leading nation” when she refers to our old policy with regard to sheepishly following the Kyoto cult and this confuses me. She claims leadership is supporting a point of view that is at best inaccurate, untruthful and has not even remotely been established as factual?

She touts “Compromise, coordination and consensus as if they were Made in Canada ideals for the rest of the world to follow, the problem is when we actually see such compromise it is highlighted by the UN’s refusal to declare the murder of hundreds of thousands in Darfur as genocide and consensus is recognized in the Bosnian Civil War that was nothing less than a 10 year long internationally witnessed murder spree.

Meanwhile McQuaig derides the new “aggressive Canadian posture”, the same one that has assisted in the transformation of Libya during the Arab Spring saved countless millions from a life dominated by the Taliban’s brutal theocratic dictatorship.

I know this may come as a shock, but I am one hundred and eighty degrees out of phase with Linda McQuaig on this issue. I believe Canada is (finally) taking a leadership role with regard to Kyoto and some of the other foreign policy initiatives PM Harper has spearheaded, and it is about damn time. We can not afford to abdicate our national interests to a consortium of lesser nations and extra-national busybodies.

We, all Canadians, must take an active and interested role in our international affairs and that interest demands that when the reality of a situation does not correspond to the accepted norms or some international consensus that we MUST oppose it for our own sake and for our own good.

No comments: