September 30, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

From wattsupwiththat.com

wayne says:

September 30, 2010 at 10:04 am

Son of a gun, Congress can’t seem to run the country but at least they turned down the volume on the TV before fleeing D.C. … I’m so impressed! They were sure to highlighted how extemely hard it is to do such a feat and should be re-elected to continue their…. ;-(

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Sep/30/senate_votes_to_turn_down_volume_on_tv_commercials.html

REPLY: OH man, this has been a sore point with me for years being in TV, a post is coming on this. – Anthony

It certainly would be a great thing if Canada were to follow the example of the U.S.

The excessive sound volume of the TV commercials is one of the reasons why I no longer watch TV.

The major reason is that the quality of the programs shown on TV has become so poor that when I watch TV at all, it is only to help me fall asleep within a minute or so after I begin watch a program.

I have discussed this with others and found that many of the people I spoke to about that also stopped watching TV for similar reasons.  After all, there is only so much of a continuous onslaught of propaganda anyone can take before being forced to tune out.  Misrepresentation, inanities, predictability of dialogue, in short, Propaganda of the worst kind.  In general, TV programs have become nothing but a vehicle for indoctrination through never-ending, mind-numbing propaganda.

The worst programs for the inundation with propaganda through TV are the news programs.  Those consist of political and commercial propaganda in equal proportions, even to the point were irritating, basal background “music” during the news is now the major part of an exceedingly irritating assault on the senses.

I cannot and will not take it anymore.  Too much is too much!

Posted in Propaganda debunked | Print | No Comments »

September 30, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

The following message was sent today to the Fort Air Partnership (and a pertinent portion of it to The Weather Network):

Hello Fort Air Partnership,

Just now I came back to your website to look for the current conditions in Bruderheim, after I had been trying in vain to find them before on some of your web pages.

Some of the problems I encountered some time ago still persist.  It appears that your website does not cater very well to the FireFox web browser.  A substantial portion of Internet users employs FireFox.  You should have your web-designer address that.

It has been a while since the Bruderheim monitoring site had been set up.  You should have your web designer add a menu option for Bruderheim (Site #49) on the following web pages:

• http://www.fortair.org/historical_data.php
• http://www.fortair.org/historical_data.php#Anchor-49575
• http://www.fortair.org/historical_data.php#Anchor-47857

The addition of something like the following line is required in your source code for the station list:

<a href=“airquality_data.asp”>Site 49: Bruderheim</a><br>

A suggestion for your relationship with The Weather Network

The Weather Network derives its current temperature values for Bruderheim, Lamont, Chipman and Saint Michael from the weather station at Elk Island National Park.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to inform the Weather Network of the fact that a temperature display for Bruderheim should more appropriately be derived from local measurements that are being taken at your site #49 in Bruderheim.

Something similar should be done for Fort Saskatchewan.  Surely you can do better in cooperation with the Weather Network.

The current temperature values that are being displayed by The Weather Network for Fort Saskatchewan are being measured at Oliver.  Could one consider that to be more than a bit odd, perhaps in need of a cure? (See Note to the uninitiated)

The suggested improvements would increase the credibility of the Weather Network, while at the same time they could elevate the visibility of your website.

Regards,

Walter Schneider
http://folc.ca

Cc: Some Bruderheim, Lamont and Saint Michael residents; Lamont Leader; The Weather Network

___________
Note to the uninitiated: Although the weather station at Oliver is located within the boundaries of the City of Edmonton, it is located on the site of an agricultural research facility, quite some distance removed from the city of Fort Saskatchewan.  The closest neighbour to the agricultural research facility is a mental health hospital just across the road from the agricultural research facility.

Posted in Town of Bruderheim, Weather | Print | 5 Comments »

September 27, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Yes, you read that correctly, “global cooling”, and, as unbelievable as it may seem, the concerns with global cooling are being discussed by the Bilderbergers, but read on.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk

Global Cooling and the New World Order

By James Delingpole, September 26th, 2010

Bilderberg. Whether you believe it’s part of a sinister conspiracy which will lead inexorably to one world government or whether you think it’s just an innocent high-level talking shop, there’s one thing that can’t be denied: it knows which way the wind is blowing. (Hat tips: Will/NoIdea/Ozboy)

At its June meeting in Sitges, Spain (unreported and held in camera, as is Bilderberg’s way), some of the world’s most powerful CEOs rubbed shoulders with notable academics and leading politicians. They included: the chairman of Fiat, the Irish Attorney General Paul Gallagher, the US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, Henry Kissinger, Bill Gates, Dick Perle, the Queen of the Netherlands, the editor of the Economist…. Definitely not Z-list, in other words.

Which is what makes one particular item on the group’s discussion agenda so tremendously significant. See if you can spot the one I mean:

The 58th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in Sitges, Spain 3 – 6 June 2010. The Conference will deal mainly with Financial Reform, Security, Cyber Technology, Energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, World Food Problem, Global Cooling, Social Networking, Medical Science, EU-US relations.

Yep, that’s right. Global Cooling.

Which means one of two things.

Either it was a printing error.

Or the global elite is perfectly well aware that global cooling represents a far more serious and imminent threat to the world than global warming, but is so far unwilling to admit it except behind closed doors….(Full Story)

James Delingpole does not neglect in his article to castigate our efforts to devise and implement futile methods by which to stave off global warming, by which to wreck the economy, and he does not neglect to suggest that: “We need a “Global Warming” Nuremberg.”

That is of course wishful thinking.  Our leaders who inflict any and all sort of alarmist insanity on us to force us to atone for the sins of our fathers and their own can and will do so with absolute impunity.  That includes putting fiscal restraints on the Alberta health-care system, so as to enable the provincial government to set aside $2 billion for carbon capture and sequestration that, once implemented, will not have the slightest impact on global or even local climate trends, regardless of whether those trends will be towards a cooler or warmer climate.

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Health issues, Climate Change | Print | No Comments »

September 25, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Thanks to ICECAP:

Hawaii Reporter, Tuesday September 21, 2010

Questioning the Arctic Ice Melt and Temperature Scare

BY JACK DINI –Whatever we hear about the Arctic these days we should keep in mind that most information is based on satellite measurements of Arctic sea ice since 1979. With a little over thirty years of data many scientists and environmentalists use decreases in Arctic sea ice as a sure sign of man-made global warming. A little over thirty years of data is hardly a blink of an eyelid in terms of geological time. As Richard Lindzen, a prominent global warming skeptic and professor at MIT puts it, “this is a primitive field where nobody has much idea of anything.” (1)

There are some other issues that cloud the temperature data from the Arctic. They include an expanded definition of ‘Arctic,’ extrapolations rather than accurate temperature measurements, and the simple fact that the Arctic has been warmer in previous times….(Full Story)

_____________
I know, I know. What does someone from Hawaii know about the Arctic?!  Well, perhaps he is far enough away from it to be able to take in the view of the whole forest instead of just being fascinated by a few trees.  Besides, he is a reporter who presents the findings of quite a few well-known and well-respected climate scientists.

Certainly, those scientists are skeptical of the veracity of politically-correct climate alarmism, but are they wrong just because they still have open minds and objectively report the facts, all of the facts and nothing but the facts?

A note about the article by Jack Dini.  It does contain one misperception:

GISS estimates its Arctic temperatures from land-based thermometers that each supposedly represents the temperatures over 1200 square kilometers.” (3)

Although quoted correctly from the source article, that statement is incorrect. It should read: “GISS estimates its Arctic temperatures from land-based thermometers that each supposedly represents the temperatures for a distance (or for a radius) of 1200 kilometers.”  That is the distance from the southern boundary of Idaho to Edmonton, from Kansas City to Winnipeg, or from Atlanta to Toronto. (More at GISS Polar Interpolation)

Aside from that, it is now coming to the end of September.  A lot of the crops in this part of Alberta are still standing and far more of them have not yet been combined.  After the late seeding we had this year and the cool summer to boot, there was not much global warming this year.  We sure could use some of that global warming.

Read more about the climate as it is.

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Weather, Climate Change | Print | No Comments »

September 21, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Bruderheim Seniors Centre
5001 Queen Street
Box 344
Bruderheim, Alberta, Canada
T0B 0S0

Tel.: 796-3055 during hours of operation (at other times, contact Walter Schneider by calling 780.796.2306, or e-mail him at walt@folc.ca)

Hours of operation and details for rental arrangements

Information for members, new and old (HTML format)

Information for members, new and old (MS RTF format)

Calendar of up-coming Events

Record of past events

Posted in Bruderheim Seniors | Print | No Comments »

September 21, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Canada Free Press

By Dr. Tim Ball  Monday, September 20, 2010

Most people have no idea what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) actually studies. They believe their reports are complete reports of climate change. This misconception is mostly because the IPCC arranged it and does little to correct it.  In fact, they only look at that portion of climate change caused by humans. Here’s how they limit their study.

“The definition of climate change the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods’. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes.”

The problem is you cannot determine the human portion of climate change if you don’t know how much it changes naturally – and we don’t. The IPCC assumes humans cause most of the changes that are occurring and set out to prove that is true….(Full Story)

__________
Note by folc.ca: Those few paragraphs provide a sketch of research methods that are not pretty. The commonly used designation for such research methods is “advocacy research“.  Advocacy research is often used in the soft sciences, such as in sociology, where wrong conclusion are routinely drawn by making projections to general circumstances and basing those projections on desired results that were manufactured through selective study samples and skewed or invented data, while excluding all data that tend to counter or disprove a desired objective.

Advocacy research is of course shoddy, even unethical and outright fraudulent when it is done on purpose.  Still, the IPCC and its supporters commonly engage in it apparently for the simple reason that, for the purpose of social engineering on a global scale, they attempt to subvert the hard sciences that come into play in credible climate research.

It has been known for a good number of years that the IPCC is heavily involved in selecting and promoting advocacy research. The enormous extent of the IPCC’s involvement in the instigation and promotion of such shoddy research practices did not come into general public view until the revelations came to light that surfaced in the course of the climategate scandal in November of 2009 and through the attempts by various review committees at whitewashing the culpability of the main organizations and players involved in climate-related advocacy research.

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Climate Change | Print | No Comments »

September 20, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Thompsons part 4: Every slope is a watercourse

When Matt and Janet first came to Western Australia they were told they could run a feedlot without regular licenses as long as they were not within 100m of a watercourse. It makes a big difference. If a farm is a category 68, it can run thousands of cattle (and many dairy farms do) without being licensed. This is the ongoing saga of how Big-Government can use complexity to play Kingmaker.

I didn’t think I’d ever find agricultural codes interesting, but by paying attention to the detail we can see just how powerful The Department of Environment (DEC) is, and how selective it can be. You would think it would be easy to measure off 100 m toward a waterway, but how do you define a waterway? You can I might expect that it would have banks, or that in a 100 year flood the water flowing in the gully might have a chance of reaching a body of water big enough to have a fish. Don’t apply for a job at DEC WA.

DEC has declared that Narrogin Beef Producers are a Category 1 property needing licenses because there are watercourses to the North of the feedlot, and to the South West. This picture below,  is a photo (slightly amended) of that paddock to the north in winter. Would you call this a watercourse?

A photo of the Northern “watercourse” of The Thompsons property. (Sign added).

This is the “watercourse” to the South West, a remnant waterway.

Thompsons South West “watercourse”

This is a dry gully visible in aerial shots in the south western edge of their property (see the map image below). There’s no running water in it, and there hasn’t been as long as the Thompsons have been there, and even in the event of a major flood, the gully leads to nowhere in particular. It doesn’t flow into anything. You can follow the tree line of these dry gullies in a google map and see that they eventually might meander into salt pans that are kilometers away….(Full Story)

Related and original story

Posted in Alarmist Insanity, Propaganda debunked, Fines & Penalties, Community & Industry, Pollution: Health Issues, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

September 20, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Calendar of up-coming Events

Posted in Bruderheim Seniors | Print | No Comments »

September 18, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

URGENT – A call to action for the WUWT community

Posted on September 18, 2010 by Anthony Watts

I need your help, they need your help. Please read this whole story and consider if you can help. WUWT readers may recall this story: Death of a Feedlot Operator

In which the anal-retentive government of West Australia has “licensed” a family farm out of operation due to some shonky science and arbitrary application of the “sniff test”. Yes that’s right, cattle farms smell, so do pig farms, as does any farm. But now it’s reason to shut one out due to baseless complaints from the local greens. And, it all started when Matt Thompson started doubting global warming and talking about it publicly.

I’ve never made a plea to the WUWT worldwide readership for help, I’m making one now to donate to these people to stave off eviction. If nothing else, do it to spite the government of Western Australia and the greens (Environmental Defender’s Office WA)  that have turned farming into a “crime”. The real crime is that government listens to these hotheads. From Jo Nova’s website:

4 days notice! The Thompsons are served notice of eviction.

Will, Abbey, Janet, Luke, Matt and Kate on their farm. April 2010

From Agmates (and many emails), news comes that The National Bank served notice today that the Thompsons have to be off their property in four days.

This is a family with four young children, who ran a profitable business; they filled in every form and ticked every box. They have broken no laws, and there are no outstanding environmental notices, but yet, they came to Western Australia with their life savings and they are losing everything. (Note: Matt and Janet are from the USA, Hugo, Oklahoma – Anthony)
Continue reading →

Posted in Corruption & Fraud, Alarmist Insanity, Censorship, Climate Change, Fines & Penalties, Pollution: Health Issues, Community & Industry, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | 2 Comments »

September 15, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN organization, is not a reliable source of information, and the science concerning the current concerns about climate change is not sound.

Those are findings by Ross McKitrick, Ph.D., Professor of Environmental Economics, University of Guelph, Canada, in an assessment he made of the veracities of a total of five inquiries of the long-standing actions of the key players that surfaced through the e-mails that came to light November 2009 and were subsequently dubbed the  climategate scandal.

Professor McKitrick published the findings of his assessment in a 50-page report, Understanding the Climategate Inquiries, released September 2010 (PDF file, 322kB).

If you read the short introduction to the report, you will quite likely become sufficiently interested in reading much more of it.

Professor McKitrick explains that at the very least some of the panelists in some of the reviews he reports on were neither impartial nor reasonably to be expected to be objective, and that they moreover on occasions had publicly prejudged issues that the reviews they participated in should have objectively examined.  Still there were many other issues that put the reviews into a bad light, such as this:

It is noteworthy that the first item in the terms of reference called for examination of all relevant email exchanges, and that the Inquiry noted that the emails released on the internet made up only a small fraction of the total volume of CRU correspondence. The Report noted (p. 33)

The presumption is that e-mails were selected to support a particular viewpoint. Recognising that they were a tiny fraction of those archived, the Review Team sought to learn more about the full contents of the back-up server. This attempt, summarised in Appendix 6, was largely unsuccessful due to the sheer scale of the task and ongoing police investigation.

The Inquiry made only a hesitant and disorganized effort to examine the CRU backup server, allowing itself to be dissuaded by the UEA itself. As outlined in Appendix 6 to the report, the Inquiry accepted a proposal to have the UEA hire a computing consultant to access the backup server, who would then work with the police computer analyst to identify other emails and materials pertinent to the Inquiry, which would then be redacted by the university before submitting to the Review panel. But by the time this protocol was worked out, too much time had elapsed to actually do it, so the whole matter was dropped.

There appears to be little doubt that the whitewashing the various reviews produced and were accused of was in fact just that.  It comes as no surprise that the examination undertaken by Professor McKitrick concludes with:

The world still awaits a proper inquiry into climategate: one that is not stacked with global warming advocates, and one that is prepared to cross-examine evidence, interview critics as well as supporters of the CRU and other IPCC players, and follow the evidence where it leads.

Given that I spent hundreds of hours following the discussions of the IPCC’s brand of climate science since long before and after the climategate scandal first emerged, there is no doubt in my mind that Professor McKitrick’s conclusion is correct.  It is a sad state of affairs that hundreds of billions and even trillions of dollars are being spent in remedies for alarmist concerns that are at best based on shoddy science and at worst on apparently deliberate misrepresentation — no matter how much whitewashing of it has been attempted.

__________
You may be tempted (and should be) to read authoritative comments by climate scientists on all of this.  For that check Steve McIntyre’s blog entry Climategate Inquiries.

Update 2010 09 16: See also The Climategate Inquiries, by Andrew Montford

Andrew Montford is an English writer and editor, the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (2008), a history of some of the events leading up to the release of emails and data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. He writes a blog specialising in climate change issues at http://bishop-hill.net and has made many media appearances discussing global warming from a sceptic perspective.

While the Montford assessment examined only the three U.K. reviews and the Penn State review of the climategate scandal, it clearly and irrevocably identifies that, rather than clearing the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia or Michael Mann of Penn State of any wrongdoings — which the reviews all claimed they had adequately done, the reviews themselves without a doubt were scandalous in their blatant and deliberate exclusion of any and all evidence of the misrepresentations and fabricated facts produced for the IPCC reports.  In short, the reviews quite literally made certain that they saw no evil, heard no evil and spoke no evil.  The conclusion is inevitable, the hockey stick remains broken, and the IPCC reports do not deserve to be trusted.

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Climate Change | Print | 1 Comment »