This isn’t the hotel you’re looking for.
Oda is ^NOT a good Canadian politician. She’s decidedly on the dark side of politics, accused for years of extravagant spending, and contempt for Canadians and our institutions. I feel so badly for her constituents. She’s a royal pain in the you-know-what (pocketbook).
Bev Oda travel records show $665 nightly hotel stay
Canadian International Development Agency facing $380 million in budget cuts
And she didn’t cancel the $300/night hotel in time to avoid paying for one night there too, even though she didn’t use it. With the more expensive hotel 2km away, she also got to book luxury car transportation: a Mercedes or BMW. No word if a helicopter was involved too.
It’s so important for those phony fiscal Conservatives to keep up appearances when abroad. That’s how Canada’s true value is expressed to other nations, not our peacekeeping, our environmental stewardship, our stance against unjust weapons of war, but rather how much we let our slimy politicians spend while trying to impress others.
Harper has not felt it just to punish her many transgressions with so much as a demotion, let alone the more appropriate act of taking away all ministerial responsibility. Got to keep up appearances that nothing is wrong, after all.
==
In other news of a party leader not being accountable for dreadful party representatives, and politicians I’m not impressed by, there’s Danielle Smith. Smith gets a little help from the National Post:
As for climate change: How can it be possible that even now, with a vigorous debate underway among climatologists about the reliability of climate models, about the still-undetermined role of solar fluctuations in determining the Earth’s temperature, and about the absence of discernible global warming for the past 15 years, that any serious person can still take it as inviolable dogma that the scientific debate is past? Don’t these people read?
Uh, Den Tandt goes right off the rails of reason at that point. The “debate” is all done within the structure of human-caused climate change, and how other variables can be accounted for. It’s not a debate over what has already been learned about the greenhouse effect due to industrial, residential, and transportation emissions. Doesn’t Den Tandt read? The scientific debate has passed, it’s all PR flacks’ propaganda like Ethical Oil, the Fraser Institute (Smith’s old haunt, I’ve read), and Heartland Institute vs. scientific research. Den Tandt can’t call propaganda vs. scientific fact, a “debate”.
Scientists no more debate the portion of climate change that humans can impact, than they would debate the force of gravity, or the theory of evolution. Den Tandt, Smith, and climate change deniers exploit ignorance of science, and an apathy millions of Canadians possess for selecting highly educated politicians. The result is political parties willing to stand up to facts with lies, and come out looking like heroes because of tripe like Den Tandt’s article.
If nothing else, Danielle Smith has shown that she has a spine, even in the 11th hour, with all the marbles riding on the outcome. I, for one, view that as a refreshing deviation from type.
Ignorance and arrogance is refreshing? What news is this guy reading? (Oh right, he’s writing for the National Post.) Alas, even though the spinal cord is great for auto-reaction, it’s not a thinking part of the nervous system. I’d rather Smith prove she has the capacity for careful thought, than a simple flinch reaction that a human vegetable possesses when burned.
Hey there saskBOY…take it easy on Danielle…..she said and I quote “the science isn’t settled”…..and there are miilions of people with the same opinion. Just because you swallowed a gallon of the climate change kool-aid doesn’t make it true….you have to give others their due…..when someone says “the science isn’t settled” they simply mean the jury is still out…nothing is proven….it in large part it is still opinion…not fact….it is something you shouldn’t accept on faith…..
I don’t understand why you tin foil hat crowd can’t be tolerant of those who don’t walk to the beat of your drum. Danielle is right..”the science isn’t settled”…if it was… there would be no controversy…it would be an accepted fact…why isn’t it….the climate changers have been beating on this for more than a few years and have yet to convince a good chunk of the population that it’s factual….why ??
Personally I don’t think it will ever be resolved. This argument will go on ad-infinitum…..my greatest fear in this whole thing is that the lefties will gain some sort of political power and screw the world up beyond all ability to restore it….that the lifestyle that the western world has worked so hard to build up will be torn down by tax and spend lefties who have no real concern for people, only their own blind ideology….ei ( Barrack Obongo)…(Alison Redfraud)..(saskBOY)….(Greece)…(Spain)…(Europe)…..etc…etc….
So in closing I will join with Danielle and agree “the science isn’t settled” !! GO WILDROSE !!!!!!!!!!
I already explained away your attempted refutation, which you clearly didn’t understand. The debate isn’t within science, it’s a disagreement between PR flacks and scientists. Scientists debate theories all the time, but there are no real scientists who disagree with the fact that human air pollution is modifying the natural climate (sans air pollution from our various sources). They’re trying to eliminate other variables to know just how quickly we’re all screwed.
I doubt typing all of those facts again will help you realize where you’ve erred, but it makes me feel better to know that I’ve at least tried to be civilized and not talk down to you at this moment.
I hate how you constantly need to attack saskboy. Knowing you, mooner, I’m guessing that you have nothing else better to do with your life than to personally attack one of my friends. Do yourself a favour and reread your statement before posting it.
Well, not to worry. Harper has his version of the KGB, watching over what the scientists say to the media. The media is muzzled by Harper, as we all know anyway.
I don’t know about anyone else. However, I think when you can light the water from your faucets on fire, from fracking…you get free home heat out of it. What does a huge hole in the ozone matter? So what if the high Arctic is melting away, I don’t live near the coast. What does it matter, the Boreal Forests are being cut down, to get to the Bitumen. We only need trees, so stupid humans can breathe. I have lots of trees where I live….that is, if they aren’t logged. There is acid in the ocean, right up to the shores of BC. The acid eats the shells off the crustaceans. Perhaps, the crustaceans don’t need their shells. Problem is, the oceans absorb Carbon Dioxide. Seems the seas are on an overdose of Carbon Dioxide. If the oceans die, we die. Oh well, we all have to die someday. I mean, if we don’t get rid of fossil fuels, the planet will get rid of us.
Man is the most destructive animal on earth, and the most stupid one at that. I lied…man has even polluted space with debris. They are afraid, the satellites will be knocked out.
You seem… conflicted ;-) I guess an internal debate is even more efficient than a “debate” between PR flacks. If we can get the Public Relations dog and pony show salesmen to pretend they are scientists, and are conflicted about the science supporting climate change, that seems like a really efficient way to highlight the “debate”. Don’t try to remember there’s no evidence to support the fake scientists, just remember that “some people say” there’s a debate.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/24/pol-bev-oda-hotel.html
Current theory is she wanted a more comfortable place to indulge in her smoking addiction. Since Comservatives oppose harm reduction, safe inhalation/injection sites where addicts can get high in a supervised environment, I’m not sure what to make of this.
It’s astounding how little you know about global warming Sask. The saddest part is that the statistical modeling used for ‘proving’ global warming can’t allow a 15 year temperature stability. Even Phil Jones says that. There are 5 times as many polar bears now as there were 60 years ago. ‘Scientists’ JUST discovered there are twice as many penguins as previously thought. Many glaciers are expanding rather than retreating.
[ADMIN NOTE: (feel free to respond to this point if you want, but not with your offtopic BS.)
"Many glaciers" are expanding, if you think a handful in one region is "many". Most glaciers are receding. I had to explain this to climate change denier Adrian McNair recently, when he framed a recent story the same incorrect way you just did.]
Den Tandt doesn’t call propaganda vs. scientific fact, a “debate”. He calls scientific fact vs. scientific fact, a debate. This seems to be lost on you. As the ‘brilliant’ sciencologist GJW sez so elloquently above “There is acid in the ocean, right up to the shores of BC.” I guess that the simple fact that the oceans are basic ie pH>7 is but a minor inconvenient truth.
[Admin Note: What you call a "simple fact" and an "inconvenient truth" is refutable by definition of the pH scale. 7.0 is neutral, not basic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH I guess when you're simple, your facts are inconvenient to come by.
UPDATE: My HTML editor didn't display your greater than symbol correctly, so it looked to me like you'd said 7, my mistake. Doesn't change that your point is garbage anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH#Seawater
"Acidification" means to make the water more acidic. It's an ongoing process, not a state presently achieved.]
Also as of right now the Arctic Sea Ice is almost exactly at the 1979-2000 average. Kinda’ makes mockery of the statement “So what if the high Arctic is melting away”. Or perhaps he ‘s been frightened by Fruit Fly AdvocacyDave’s appeal to children to “help save Santa from drowning” donation plea at Christmas…. yeah, ‘science’ at it’s best.
Hurricanes at an all time low. More inconvenience.
No troposphere warming. More inconvenience.
Ocean (Argo) cooling. More inconvenience.
Oh, one more thing… a 100year old map showing no ocean rise!!! investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=2725&tw_p=twt “when the 1912 is shown alongside a satellite image of the same location from Google Earth, it reveals not only the startling accuracy of the original map (drafted at a time when aerial photography did not exist) but also a stunning lack of Pacific Ocean encroachment on the narrow shoal linking the lagoons to the sea… Even the narrowest and lowest part of the bar, marked with a black squiggle on the 1912 map, remains the same in 2012.”
Oooopsie!!!! Sad that some will believe computer predictions rather than emperical evidence. Not surprising tho’, when ‘the science’ is secondary to the agenda.
You only get one comment per post if there aren’t responses. Your other comments have been removed. If you complain, those will be removed. You know the rules, and your fictions are not welcome here.
ADDED:
Keep it up, and you’re banned. You’re allowed to have your say like anyone else, but your frequent, and over numerous comments are a distraction from legitimate and thoughtful comments that contain verifiable facts. I’ve grown more than weary of correcting your lies, but in the interest of openness I’ve still given you a chance to get one stupid comment in, or a response to a reply too. And you’re such an asshole*, even that isn’t good enough for you.
* http://saskboy.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/aurora-in-regina/comment-page-1/#comment-16982
pH=7 is neutral
pH<7 is acidic (7 is basic (> means greater than) Do you understand this Sask?
Ocean water is pH 8.1 +/- 0.3 variability Now do you understand? Your note makes you look as if you don’t have a clue!
RE: pH, see my update.
My response was to the point “There is acid in the ocean, right up to the shores of BC. The acid eats the shells off the crustaceans” Again the oceans are basic.
But why set the record straight as long as it fits your litany!!!
Hey, you managed a comment completely factually correct! There’s a first, so far as I can remember. Only trouble is, it’s a non sequitur, like most of what you post. You think the words “climate change” are license to launch into whatever “facts” or slurs of the day you’ve learned and want to show off.
Sask, I’ve been fighting this fight for many years. Everything I write is “completely factually correct!” and verifiable. I even include the reference.
Oh and GRACE data say’s your wrong about the glaciers. Just so you know.
In recap, other than ‘my HTML ate my homework’ excuse and your lack of GRACE knowledge, you don’t dispute the facts!!!!!
http://climatecrocks.com/2012/02/13/grace-and-glacial-ice-melt/
The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains
“The world’s greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows… The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the “third pole” – are definitely melting… But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.”
And that’s from the bastion of alarmism The Graundian!!!!
But then again, as your own citation sez “I cannot tell you why GRACE was not accurate in the Himalaya, though we will find out in time.” OR ‘We have preordained the conclusions, we just need to massage the data’!!!
As an aside, they ‘refute’ the lack of ice loss by explaining area. Completely ignoring the ice mass gains at higher altitudes… exactly what the Guardian said.
Next!! ;)