Wednesday, February 12, 2020
Sunday, February 9, 2020
Thursday, February 6, 2020
440 Scientific Papers Last Year Disputed Climate Change Alarm...
WND.com reported on February 3, 2020:
Last year, more than 440 scientific papers were published that cast doubt on the claim that human-caused carbon emissions are causing catastrophic changes to the climate.
The papers show that climate science is not "settled," the NoTricksZone blog reported.
The website noted that while the papers challenge the claims of climate alarmists, they don't prove that the claims are invalid.
The papers support four main skeptical positions that question the climate alarm popularized in academia and media:
Conversely, the papers do not support the following "consensus" positions of climate alarmists:
- Natural mechanisms play a significant role in the net changes in the climate system, including temperature variations, precipitation patterns and weather events. The influence of increased carbon concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined, the papers show.
- The intensity of warming, hurricanes, droughts sea-level rise, glacier and sea-ice retreat during the modern era is neither unprecedented or remarkable, falling within the range of natural variability.
- The computer climate models are neither reliable nor consistently accurate. The uncertainty and error ranges are irreducible, and projections of future climate states are not supported by observations, making them little more than speculation.
- Policies to reduce emissions such as advocacy for renewables are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment. On the other hand, elevated carbon and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere, including enhanced crop yields.
Summaries and links to the papers have been posted on the following pages by NoTricksZone:
- Some 110% of the warming since 1950 has been caused by increases in human-caused carbon emissions, leaving natural attribution at close to 0%.
- Modern warming, glacier and sea-ice recession, sea level rise, drought and hurricane intensities are all occurring at unprecedentedly high and rapid rates, and thus endanger the global biosphere and human civilization.
- The climate models are reliable and accurate, and the scientific understanding of the effects of both natural factors carbon concentration changes on climate is "settled enough" that "the time for debate has ended."
- Wind and solar expansion are safe, effective and environmentally friendly alternatives.
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Please share this.
Sunday, February 2, 2020
Canadian Broadcasting report constitutes a stunning overreach
Peter Menzies is a senior fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and a former vice-chair of telecommunications for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
The concept of a free, unfettered internet through which Canadians can speak, learn and communicate without permission of the state was blown apart this week by a series of invasive and unjustifiable recommendations.
The Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel’s report tabled Wednesday didn’t just call, as many feared, for the extension of broadcasting-content regulation to the internet. It advocated for a sweeping series of interventions that would make all online media – from online sites such as Rabble to Rebel News and in any language – subject to government regulation.
For more than 25 years, an unfettered, profoundly democratic internet has thrived in Canada. Online entertainment providers have created unprecedented levels of prosperity within a creative sector that has grown from a $5-billion industry to almost $9-billion in the past decade. Print media have struggled to transition to online distribution but, while many have added video, they haven’t remotely challenged the traditional definition of broadcasting. Meanwhile, many new and innovative platforms have launched; YouTube has produced unsubsidized stars such as Lilly Singh and Justin Bieber and created, according to a Ryerson University study, 24,000 jobs. All of this without the protection of the regulated “system.”
And yet the panel, formed by the government to advise on modernization of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Acts, decided – in a breathtaking expansion of scope and bureaucratic hubris – not only to ignore that prosperity, but to rein it in. And it wants this done by redefining broadcasting to “extend beyond audio and audiovisual content to include alphanumeric news content made available to the public by means of telecommunications, collectively known as media content.” And “media content means audio or audiovisual content or alphanumeric news content.”
In other words, if you transmit, for commercial purposes, words, video or voice through the internet, text messages, fax or phone line, you will do so only with permission of a federal agency.
That’s right: After more than a century of non-interference in speech through telecommunications, it is suggested that the state will determine what constitutes news and, when the proposed objectives of the act are included, “trusted” news.
That indicates that the content of virtually every online information entity – magazines, newspapers, subscription newsletters, real estate listings, travel advisories, weather reports, relationship advice, think-tank analyses, craft beer reviews and the latest Ukrainian borscht recipe – may be subject to the stern eye of what assumedly will be thousands of Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commision (CRTC) bureaucrats. (A name change to the Canadian Communications Commission is suggested to reflect its new, omnipotent role.)
But the panel didn’t stop there. It went on to ask that new legislation apply to commercial media originating from outside the country “whether or not they have a place of business in Canada.” Assumedly that means not just Netflix, but The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, video games and who knows how many sites of an adult “audiovisual” nature may be expected at some point to offer required levels of Canadian content.
Not all will have to be licensed. The panel suggests the CRTC may exempt certain entities from that obligation. But all will be required to register and “contribute in an appropriate manner to the creation, production and discoverability of Canadian media content.” “Alphanumeric” news sites will not be subject to spending requirements and, while they may qualify for subsidy/tax credits, their “economic relationships” with content providers will be regulated.
Fairness demands noting that the panel made a number of sensible recommendations for which it should be commended. The suggestion that the CBC be weaned off accepting advertising is particularly welcome as is the consolidation of organizations supporting the two-thirds English, one-third French creative funding pools.
Yet, there are no recommendations among the 97 listed regarding safeguarding the independence of the regulator of news from political interference or of improving transparency regarding its decisions. Consumer issues are generally dealt with through talk of reviews, studies and consultations. Over all, the panel very clearly saw the internet primarily as the new servant of the Canadian-content industry and its roughly 3 per cent of gross domestic product. In doing so, it produced a series of recommendations that displayed a profoundly #okboomer view of modern communications.
All this when there was little evidence of a problem that could not have been solved through targeted, direct government funding. But the panel opted instead for making the internet and all of its subscribers pay – with their wallets and their freedom – to support the selfish demands of a small, unsettled segment within an otherwise flourishing and entrepreneurial creative industry.
Please share this.
The concept of a free, unfettered internet through which Canadians can speak, learn and communicate without permission of the state was blown apart this week by a series of invasive and unjustifiable recommendations.
The Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel’s report tabled Wednesday didn’t just call, as many feared, for the extension of broadcasting-content regulation to the internet. It advocated for a sweeping series of interventions that would make all online media – from online sites such as Rabble to Rebel News and in any language – subject to government regulation.
For more than 25 years, an unfettered, profoundly democratic internet has thrived in Canada. Online entertainment providers have created unprecedented levels of prosperity within a creative sector that has grown from a $5-billion industry to almost $9-billion in the past decade. Print media have struggled to transition to online distribution but, while many have added video, they haven’t remotely challenged the traditional definition of broadcasting. Meanwhile, many new and innovative platforms have launched; YouTube has produced unsubsidized stars such as Lilly Singh and Justin Bieber and created, according to a Ryerson University study, 24,000 jobs. All of this without the protection of the regulated “system.”
And yet the panel, formed by the government to advise on modernization of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Acts, decided – in a breathtaking expansion of scope and bureaucratic hubris – not only to ignore that prosperity, but to rein it in. And it wants this done by redefining broadcasting to “extend beyond audio and audiovisual content to include alphanumeric news content made available to the public by means of telecommunications, collectively known as media content.” And “media content means audio or audiovisual content or alphanumeric news content.”
In other words, if you transmit, for commercial purposes, words, video or voice through the internet, text messages, fax or phone line, you will do so only with permission of a federal agency.
That’s right: After more than a century of non-interference in speech through telecommunications, it is suggested that the state will determine what constitutes news and, when the proposed objectives of the act are included, “trusted” news.
That indicates that the content of virtually every online information entity – magazines, newspapers, subscription newsletters, real estate listings, travel advisories, weather reports, relationship advice, think-tank analyses, craft beer reviews and the latest Ukrainian borscht recipe – may be subject to the stern eye of what assumedly will be thousands of Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commision (CRTC) bureaucrats. (A name change to the Canadian Communications Commission is suggested to reflect its new, omnipotent role.)
But the panel didn’t stop there. It went on to ask that new legislation apply to commercial media originating from outside the country “whether or not they have a place of business in Canada.” Assumedly that means not just Netflix, but The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, video games and who knows how many sites of an adult “audiovisual” nature may be expected at some point to offer required levels of Canadian content.
Not all will have to be licensed. The panel suggests the CRTC may exempt certain entities from that obligation. But all will be required to register and “contribute in an appropriate manner to the creation, production and discoverability of Canadian media content.” “Alphanumeric” news sites will not be subject to spending requirements and, while they may qualify for subsidy/tax credits, their “economic relationships” with content providers will be regulated.
Fairness demands noting that the panel made a number of sensible recommendations for which it should be commended. The suggestion that the CBC be weaned off accepting advertising is particularly welcome as is the consolidation of organizations supporting the two-thirds English, one-third French creative funding pools.
Yet, there are no recommendations among the 97 listed regarding safeguarding the independence of the regulator of news from political interference or of improving transparency regarding its decisions. Consumer issues are generally dealt with through talk of reviews, studies and consultations. Over all, the panel very clearly saw the internet primarily as the new servant of the Canadian-content industry and its roughly 3 per cent of gross domestic product. In doing so, it produced a series of recommendations that displayed a profoundly #okboomer view of modern communications.
All this when there was little evidence of a problem that could not have been solved through targeted, direct government funding. But the panel opted instead for making the internet and all of its subscribers pay – with their wallets and their freedom – to support the selfish demands of a small, unsettled segment within an otherwise flourishing and entrepreneurial creative industry.
Please share this.
Licensing for media companies in Canada
OTTAWA -- The minister charged with modernizing Canada’s broadcast and telecommunications law says if the government is to adopt recommendations laid out by an expert panel, licensing enforcement likely won’t be applied the same way for small media groups as it will be for global tech giants.
One of the report’s proposals, drafted by former telecommunications executive Janet Yale, specifically suggests requiring all companies that deliver "audio, audiovisual, and alphanumeric news content" to Canadians be regulated by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) or another body, through a licence or registration.
"If you’re a distributor of content in Canada and obviously if you’re a very small media organization the requirement probably wouldn’t be the same if you’re Facebook, or Google. There would have to be some proportionality embedded into this," said Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault in an interview on CTV’s Question Period airing Sunday.
He said the government will take time to carefully consider the 97 guidelines set out by the expert panel, most of which suggest handing over more powers to the CRTC.
Among those recommendations is a requirement for streaming companies to contribute to the production of Canadian content by applying a levy or requiring they allocate a portion of revenue to the cause. The tax model has been popularly coined as the "Netflix Tax," but Guilbeault says the two concepts are different.
"It’s about fairness. Companies are paying GST (General Sales Tax) in Canada and there’s no reason that some of the wealthiest companies in the world who are operating on Canadian soil shouldn’t pay," said Guilbeault.
"They’re investing a lot of money in Canada right now. We’re asking them to dedicate part of that money to specific Canadian cultural content. We’re not asking them to do more."
Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, told CTVNews.ca the report is "candidly extreme" and has no "physical boundaries."
He said the goal of generating more Canadian content remains unclear, given the record success the Canadian film and television sector has seen in recent years.
"The industry is enjoying massive success, so the question then shifts a bit to OK; we want to ensure there are Canadian stories. Part of the problem with that argument is the last two years have also been record years for Canadian certified content," said Geist.
Beyond that, he said the panel does not address what it means to be Canadian.
"We have a system for it, but the system, I think many would acknowledge, is really bad at it," said Geist. "Netflix can never under the current definition create Canadian content, because we require the producer to be Canadian"
Instead of rejigging the current model, Geist says the panel has instead pitched a "massive and costly" overhaul of the system.
Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner, who holds the title of shadow minister for industry and economic development, shares this perspective and voiced her concerns in a statement following the release of the report.
In a subsequent interview with CTVNews.ca, Rempel Garner said, "The report seeks to add further layers of bureaucracy, on a system that needs to be disrupted writ-large."
She added that the recommendations don’t go far enough in protecting Canadians against the misuse of personal data by companies like Facebook or Twitter or how to navigate Canada’s emerging 5G network.
Another of the panel’s submissions she contends with is the notion that the CRTC would identify news sites that are "accurate, trusted, and reliable" to enhance the "diversity of voices."
"It’s very paternalizing and also very frightening to think that the government would try to impose or say that’s the role of the government to control. That puts us in league with countries that control the media," said Rempel Garner.
Both Rempel Garner and Geist question whether a bill reflecting the panel’s proposals would hold up against a constitutional challenge.
"It’s not the sort of thing we’d expect to see in Canada, to be honest," Geist said.
Please share this.
One of the report’s proposals, drafted by former telecommunications executive Janet Yale, specifically suggests requiring all companies that deliver "audio, audiovisual, and alphanumeric news content" to Canadians be regulated by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) or another body, through a licence or registration.
"If you’re a distributor of content in Canada and obviously if you’re a very small media organization the requirement probably wouldn’t be the same if you’re Facebook, or Google. There would have to be some proportionality embedded into this," said Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault in an interview on CTV’s Question Period airing Sunday.
He said the government will take time to carefully consider the 97 guidelines set out by the expert panel, most of which suggest handing over more powers to the CRTC.
Among those recommendations is a requirement for streaming companies to contribute to the production of Canadian content by applying a levy or requiring they allocate a portion of revenue to the cause. The tax model has been popularly coined as the "Netflix Tax," but Guilbeault says the two concepts are different.
"It’s about fairness. Companies are paying GST (General Sales Tax) in Canada and there’s no reason that some of the wealthiest companies in the world who are operating on Canadian soil shouldn’t pay," said Guilbeault.
"They’re investing a lot of money in Canada right now. We’re asking them to dedicate part of that money to specific Canadian cultural content. We’re not asking them to do more."
Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, told CTVNews.ca the report is "candidly extreme" and has no "physical boundaries."
He said the goal of generating more Canadian content remains unclear, given the record success the Canadian film and television sector has seen in recent years.
"The industry is enjoying massive success, so the question then shifts a bit to OK; we want to ensure there are Canadian stories. Part of the problem with that argument is the last two years have also been record years for Canadian certified content," said Geist.
Beyond that, he said the panel does not address what it means to be Canadian.
"We have a system for it, but the system, I think many would acknowledge, is really bad at it," said Geist. "Netflix can never under the current definition create Canadian content, because we require the producer to be Canadian"
Instead of rejigging the current model, Geist says the panel has instead pitched a "massive and costly" overhaul of the system.
Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner, who holds the title of shadow minister for industry and economic development, shares this perspective and voiced her concerns in a statement following the release of the report.
In a subsequent interview with CTVNews.ca, Rempel Garner said, "The report seeks to add further layers of bureaucracy, on a system that needs to be disrupted writ-large."
She added that the recommendations don’t go far enough in protecting Canadians against the misuse of personal data by companies like Facebook or Twitter or how to navigate Canada’s emerging 5G network.
Another of the panel’s submissions she contends with is the notion that the CRTC would identify news sites that are "accurate, trusted, and reliable" to enhance the "diversity of voices."
"It’s very paternalizing and also very frightening to think that the government would try to impose or say that’s the role of the government to control. That puts us in league with countries that control the media," said Rempel Garner.
Both Rempel Garner and Geist question whether a bill reflecting the panel’s proposals would hold up against a constitutional challenge.
"It’s not the sort of thing we’d expect to see in Canada, to be honest," Geist said.
Please share this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)