Letters to Editor

Code of Conduct 

As the report from Principles Integrity quoted unsubstantiated comments from anonymous witnesses and not from the two Councillors who actually sat at Mr. Hanna’s table at the July golf tournament event; and, as all three Councillors have denied the claims against Mr. Hanna, it is astounding that the Principles Integity’s report would claim to present a “fair and balanced process”. It was the opposite and should have been abandoned as soon as it became clear that the second hand accusations had no substance. 

Springwater residents need to be reassured that their money will not be wasted on Code of Conduct arguments, to pursue gossip or conjecture.

David Strachan

Midhurst, Ontario

 

Are there really cuts to health care or are the unions, public service and/or special interest groups misleading the people of Ontario?

Dear Editor

Are there really cuts to health care or are the unions, public service and/or special interest groups misleading the people of Ontario?

For the past few months some members of the public service, many unions and special interest groups have been decrying purported cuts to the Ontario Health Care system.  These groups may not have reason to be protesting.  It seems the previous Liberal government(s) had been restraining, (another word for “cuts”) for nearly a decade and yet there seemed to be very little protesting during this time span.  It would seem the unions, some health care sector employees and special interest groups are making this partisan instead of looking at the facts.

Just this past month Minister of Health, Christine Elliott had announced increase funding for “small and medium-sized hospitals across the province … to help address deficits and other funding challenges.” (Courtesy of The Canadian Press · Posted: Oct 17, 2019).  And it would seem this isn’t the only area where the PC government has increased spending on health care. 

But shouldn’t we look at the facts, instead?  Yes, the PC government is amending the way health care is going to be provided.  Yes, there are going to be employees removed – some refer to these as inefficiencies because they merely promote an even larger bureaucracy.  For this one merely has to look at the LHIN’s bureaucracy.  This includes expanding their mandate into areas where they do not have authority to trespass – i.e. funding labs, nurse clinics which can cause infections in open wounds, decreased information to the patient/caregivers and one merely has to read the Auditor General’s reports to see the waste under this regime.

As for funding and funding cuts – perhaps one needs to read through the FAO’s report to see the reality – and perhaps put a stop the unions, public service and special interest groups protests…after all perhaps they protest too much, wouldn’t one think?

From the Financial Accountability Officer, 2018 report “Ontario Health Sector, An Update Assessment of Ontario Health Spending”:

“Since 2012, the Province has restrained the growth of health sector spending primarily by: imposing a four-year freeze in base operating funding to hospitals, increasing hospital efficiency, and restraining wage growth in the health sector.

Going forward, it is not clear to what extent the Province can continue to rely on temporary measures, such as wage restraint, to limit health sector spending growth to below the growth in its core cost drivers.”

So, are there really cuts to health care or are the unions, public service and/or special interest groups misleading the people of Ontario?

Elizabeth F. Marshall,

Director of Research Ontario Landowners Association

Author – “Property Rights 101:  An Introduction”

Board Member/Secretary – Canadian Justice Review Board

Legal Research – Green and Associates Law Offices, etc.,

Legislative Researcher – MPs, MPPs, Municipal Councilors,

President All Rights Research Ltd.,

I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.  Any information relayed is for informational purposes only.  Please contact a lawyer. 1-519-377-6129

 

Environmental Predictions

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has published a new paper, "Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions." Keep in mind that many of the grossly wrong environmentalist predictions were made by respected scientists and government officials. My question for you is: If you were around at the time, how many government restrictions and taxes would you have urged to avoid the predicted calamity?

As reported in The New York Times (Aug. 1969) Stanford University biologist Dr. Paul Erhlich warned: "The trouble with almost all environmental problems is that by the time we have enough evidence to convince people, you're dead. We must realize that unless we're extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years."

In 2000, Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at University of East Anglia's climate research unit, predicted that in a few years winter snowfall would become "a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren't going to know what snow is." In 2004, the U.S. Pentagon warned President George W. Bush that major European cities would be beneath rising seas. Britain will be plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020. In 2008, Al Gore predicted that the polar ice cap would be gone in a mere 10 years. A U.S. Department of Energy study led by the U.S. Navy predicted the Arctic Ocean would experience an ice-free summer by 2016.

In May 2014, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius declared during a joint appearance with Secretary of State John Kerry that "we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos."

Peter Gunter, professor at North Texas State University, predicted in the spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness: "Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions. ... By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine."

Ecologist Kenneth Watt's 1970 prediction was, "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000." He added, "This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age."

Mark J. Perry, scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan's Flint campus, cites 18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970. This time it's not about weather. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated that humanity would run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold and silver would be gone before 1990. Kenneth Watt said, "By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate ... that there won't be any more crude oil."

There were grossly wild predictions well before the first Earth Day, too. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior predicted that American oil supplies would last for only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous energy claims, in 1974, the U.S. Geological Survey said that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. However, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated that as of Jan. 1, 2017, there were about 2,459 trillion cubic feet of dry natural gas in the United States. That's enough to last us for nearly a century. The United States is the largest producer of natural gas worldwide.

Today's wild predictions about climate doom are likely to be just as true as yesteryear's. The major difference is today's Americans are far more gullible and more likely to spend trillions fighting global warming. And the only result is that we'll be much poorer and less free.

 

Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling

Editorial in the Investor’s Business Daily

Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you’d know it, since that wasn’t deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?

Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.

“The 2016-2018 Big Chill,” he writes, “was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average.”

That’s not to say that a two-year stretch of cooling means that global warming is a hoax. Two years out of hundreds or thousands doesn’t necessarily mean anything. And there could be a reasonable explanation.

Hiding The Evidence

There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%.

Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.”

Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsville showing that the Earth’s atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.

How about the fact that the U.S. has cut CO2 emissions over the past 13 years faster than any other industrialized nation? Or that polar bear populations are increasing? Or that we haven’t seen any increase in violent weather in decades?

Crickets.

Reporters no doubt worry that covering such findings will only embolden “deniers” and undermine support for immediate, drastic action.

But if fears of catastrophic climate change are warranted — which we seriously doubt — ignoring things like the rapid cooling in the past two years carries an even bigger risk.

Suppose, Brown writes, the two-year cooling trend continues. “At some point the news will leak out that all global warming since 1980 has been wiped out in two and a half years, and that record-setting events went unreported.”

He goes on: “Some people could go from uncritical acceptance of steadily rising temperatures to uncritical refusal to accept any warming at all.”

Brown is right. News outlets should decide what gets covered based on its news value, not on whether it pushes an agenda. Otherwise, they’re doing the public a disservice and putting their own already shaky credibility at greater risk.