For one thing the NRTEE never proposed a carbon tax as far as I know, deferring to the government’s professed preference for cap-and-trade.”

What looks like one fib could be a mistake, but two in the same speech? The words stay in the public’s mind, correct or not.

Here’s foreign affairs minister (and ex-environment minister) John Baird on the real reason the NRTEE (National Roundtable on Energy and the Environment) was shut down:

“Why should taxpayers have to pay for more than 10 reports promoting a carbon tax, something that the people of Canada have repeatedly rejected? That is a message the Liberal Party just will not accept,” Baird said in response to a question by Liberal Leader Bob Rae during question period.

“It should agree with Canadians. It should agree with the government. No discussion of a carbon tax that would kill and hurt Canadian families.”

[Emphasis added]

Probably he meant “kill jobs”, not “kill … families”. But it’s still idiotic.

For one thing the NRTEE never proposed a carbon tax as far as I know, deferring to the government’s professed preference for cap-and-trade. The real problem is that the NRTEE kept giving advice that presumed the government actually wanted to follow through on its own promised short-term (2020) and long-term (2050) targets.

BBC is live from Calgary today on SHAW at 2pm/4pm. Catch my report on the oil sands & my intv w the "most trusted man" in Canada, @nenshi.—
Katty Kay (@KattyKayBBC) May 14, 2012

Gerald Graham tweeted links to the BBC series (and his own blog looks interesting, expertise in marine oil spills, etc.):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/worldnews/canadadirect110512.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-radio-and-tv-17826228

@KattyKayBBC Welcome to Canada, Katty! Looking forward to your news show later today from Calgary, plus the Energy Panel. Ask me about #NGP!—
Gerald Graham (@GeraldGraham) May 14, 2012

http://bcmarine.blogspot.ca/

Apparently some of the emails abot the program , particularly from Canadian listeners were less than complimentary towards the Minister. However apparently a few emails (not stated if Canadian) were of the opinion that the interviewer was rude.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00qxrk8/One_Planet_Canada_calls_time_on_Kyoto/

…Fig.3. This purports to show the trend rainfall over NSW. What it actually shows is the difference between rainfall in two years, 1970 and 2010. Why pick those years?

Wrong. Fig 3 (and the configurable chart you linked to) shows the linear trend over the entire 1970-2010 period, not the difference between two single years.

The whole time series confirms a clear downward trend in precipitation from 1970-2010, which is also the time of a clear upward trend in temperature. As I understand it the point of the bulletin is to assess the impact of the projected continuation of such trends, among others (likley accompanied by more extreme heavy rainfall events *and* more droughts).

TC:

I don’t believe that the presentation of data in that impact statement meets basic levels of scientific integrity.

You have clearly misunderstood the bulletin. It is a sober assessment that nevertheless clearly acknowledges the uncertainties. I’ll leave the last word to the climate commission, so that readers can judge your unjustified accusation of lack of scientiific integrity.

2. Changing rainfall patterns and the risk of more intense rainfall events pose challenges for land management in the New England/Northwest NSW region.
– The region has experienced an overall drying trend over the past 40 years (Figure 3), with the trend more pronounced towards the coast.
– There is considerable certainty that rainfall patterns will change as a result of climate change, but often in ways that are difficult to predict, creating large risks
for water availability. Future changes to annual rainfall are still uncertain, however a shift in seasonality towards more summer and less winter rain is likely.
– Droughts and floods are important features of the natural variability of eastern Australia’s climate. In addition to more severe droughts, the frequency and intensity of heavy rainfall events is likely to increase as the climate continues to warm.

Maybe the FBI should put up a billboard on the freeway telling people that the FBI are members of the NIC and showing them the NIC links to information about national security and climate change. The NIC is made up of 16 U.S. Intelligence agencies. Does Joe Bast think the NIC organizations are terrorists?

Joe Bast has been trying to get the water expert Dr. Peter Gleick arrested by the FBI. So far, “no arrests have been made nor have any criminal charges been filed in the Northern District of Illinois against Peter Gleick,” Chicago FBI Special Agent Ross Rice reportedly told Big City Lib (5-10-12).

Dr. Gleick actually does research on the vulnerability of our water supply to terrorism, and so does the NIC. Probably the FBI doesn’t think that famous scientists like Dr. Gleick and the majority of ordinary citizens are terrorists like the evil Unabomber. The Unibomber probably thinks the sky is blue. So does the FBI. Does that make the FBI terrorists?

Joe Bast does not disclose on his website that he even graduated from college, yet he thinks that we should believe him instead of our schoolbooks, our teachers, and our country’s most renowned scientists.

Heartland will be having the Czech President Vaclav Klaus speak at their upcoming conference. Klaus is a global warming denier whose anti-global-warming manifesto Blue Planet in Green Shackles was translated into various languages by the Russian LUKoil.

http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2012/05/unabomber-thinks-sky-is-blue-do-you.html