Shades of Galileo

Recently, a second round of emails taken from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were released online. This release -- dubbed "ClimateGate 2.0" -- is once again revealing that those scientists and politicians pushing an alarmist view of Earth's climate being in danger due to manmade carbon dioxide emissions have engaged in deception, distortion, intimidation and even criminal activities as pertains to Freedom of Information legislation.

As bad as the revelation has been, the response by those whose careers and financial interests are dependent upon such alarmist dogma has been draconian.

Donna Laframboise who hosts the excellent climate change skeptic blog No Frakking Consensus and is the author of The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For The World's Top Climate Expert recently reported on how fellow blogger Roger Tattersall -- who runs Tallbloke's Talkshop -- was recently subjugated to officially sanctioned persecution.

Tallbloke just happened to be one of the first people to report and link to the latest batch of released emails. Because of it, last week the police came to his home and seized both his computers and router and even attempted to coerce access to his blog. You can read more about it via a National Post article authored by Ms. Laframboise: Climate Crackdown.

And Tallbloke was not the only person being targeted. As it turns out, the U.S. Justice Department had sent a formal request to blogging company WordPress to have all communications and records ("evidence" as they put it) for Tallbloke as well as Jeff ID at the Air Vent (http://NOconsensus.wordpress.com) as well as noted Canadian mathematician -- and co-destroyer of Michael Mann's hockey stick -- Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit blog.

This is more than a little disturbing. The original ClimateGate emails clearly revealed criminal breaches of Access to Information laws on both sides of the ocean. Did the U.S. Justice Department send the police out to seize the computers of those involved? No. Did they send any notice to the University of East Anglia or Penn State (Michael Mann's employer) to have their data files and emails frozen as "evidence" of a crime? No.

The only action taken in response to the original ClimateGate release were complete whitewashes (greenwashes as it were) by both UK officials who barely lifted a finger in their examinations and Penn State who didn't even depose key figures who would have revealed a great deal about what was really going on.

And yet average citizen bloggers who simply redirected readers to information from another source that was out on the internet are being treated as criminals. Why? Because they did the one thing that is not to be tolerated when dealing with climate change alarmism: they were skeptics.

It just goes to show, one cannot question the supposed science nor the stances of the religious leaders of the day without facing totalitarian authority.

Science is the child of skepticism.

When skeptics are treated as heretics, you are no longer dealing with science. You are dealing with the blind faith of a religion.

NDP math for beginners!

Much has been made over the NDP blasting the PM's handling of the first nations community of Attawapiskat. Some $90,000,000.00 has been spent on this community and that's just the amount since the Conservatives have been in office.

As PM Stephen Harper pointed out, when you divide that $90,000,000.00 by the 1,800 people within the community, you end up with each man, woman and child getting about $50,000.00 each.

Splitting hairs as they always do, the NDP say that there is a $4,500,000.00 deficit and when you break it down the total is either $5,000.00 or $6,000.00 or $6,500.00 per person. Well... they couldn't seem to decide on one number. So three figures are better than one.

However, if we take them at their word (like the sheep do) that there is a $4,500,000.00 deficit, over 5 years that would be $22,500,000.00 in total.

When you subtract that from the $90,000,000.00 spent you end up with $67,500,000.00 left.

Divide that by 5 years and you have $13,500,000.00 per year.

Divide that by the 1,800 people in the community and you have $7,500.00 per person / per year.

Which basically means that the margin of error on the NDP's figures is somewhere between 15% (at the $6,500.00 amount) and 50% (at the $5,000.00 amount).

Utterly spectacular math skills they've got going there. And they wonder why the clear majority of the country won't let their grubby hands anywhere near the country's finances.

A little perspective on Canada's homicide rate...

A friend of mine posted an article today in the Globe & Mail discussing new statistical data indicating that Canada's homicide rate is down to its lowest levels in 44 years. She being one opposing the Conservatives used this information to debase the Conservatives law and order agenda specifically as it relates to prisons.

Here's how I look at it.

The peak murder rate over the last 44 years was in 1975 when Canada was at 3.03 murders per 100,000 people. Today the rate is at 1.3 murders per 100,000 people.

Dropping roughly 57 percent seems like a big deal, enough that it might call into question the need for more prisons today right? Well, not really.

If you look at statistical data on violent crime, 44 years ago there were approximately 350 incidents of violent crime per 100,000 people. That peaked with a spike around 1992 to roughly 1,100 incidents per 100,000. Today, the rate is approximately 900 incidents per 100,000.

With those numbers in hand you can determine that homicide accounted for 0.37% of all violent crime in 1967 and 0.6% at its 1970's peak. Today it accounts for 0.17% of all violent crimes.

So while it may seem like there's a huge drop in homicide rates, as a percentage of all violent crimes it amounted to a decrease of 0.43% from the peak rate and 0.2% from where it was 44 years ago.

Hardly seems impressive, doesn't it?

If the media and the left want to talk about crime over the last 44 years, I'm all for it. Our violent crime rate today is 260% of what it was 44 years ago. Doesn't sound like crime is under control when you put it that way, does it?

*** Update ***

A comment by BlameCrash actually makes a very interesting point. These numbers are representative of a per 100,000 people in Canada. But that doesn't take into account the growing population.

The population was 20 million in 1966, 22 million in 1976 and is presently 33.7 million. If one were to assume the percentage convicted remained the same, that would mean that the prison population today would actually be 4 times that of what it was in the 1960's.

Yet, when one looks at incarceration rates, this is not the case. Alarmingly, it is quite the opposite!

In fact, in 1966 the total number of adults incarcerated was twice the number of incidents of violent crime. By the 1990's the numbers were exactly the same. So, while violent crime had been increasing, the number sent to prison for violent offences as a percent of all convictions would have actually had to decrease significantly.

Do we need any further proof that violent offences have been treated with increasing leniency?

Thieves preying on "poor" Wall Street protestors

The New York Post had an interesting article posted yesterday about how thieves had been preying on the Occupy Wall Street protestors.

I feel sorry for anybody that has been robbed. But the first few paragraphs of the article were particularly enlightening.

Occupy Wall Street protesters said yesterday that packs of brazen crooks within their ranks have been robbing their fellow demonstrators blind, making off with pricey cameras, phones and laptops -- and even a hefty bundle of donated cash and food.

“Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment,” said Nan Terrie, 18, a kitchen and legal-team volunteer from Fort Lauderdale.

“I had my Mac stolen -- that was like $5,500."

Hmm... pricey cameras, phones and a $5,500 Apple laptop. I have an Apple laptop. I can't afford one that runs $5,500 though.

I guess I need to be part of the 1 percent of the 99 percent of the... whatever...

A Legend Is Gone... adieu Mr. Jobs.

There are some people who are great for one reason or another. They invent something fantastic. They create works of beauty. They contribute to the world and change it in one way or another for the better.

But what do we say about somebody who changed everything we do?

There are very few people like that. Steve Jobs, who passed away today at the far too young age of 56, was one of those few.

If one is to look around at the world today, there is almost nothing that hasn't been touched by what he put in motion. In the world of personal computers, Jobs has been at the forefront of technology since the earliest days.

The Apple and Apple II were some of the earliest and most successful mass-market computers to hit the marketplace. Steve Jobs is largely credited with the adoption of multiple fonts including proportionally spaced fonts. The Macintosh was the first commercially viable computer to hit the market that featured both a graphical user interface (GUI) and a mouse and is largely credited with having pushed both features to the forefront of home computing.

(And before anybody gets into the debate about Microsoft ripping off Apple, the truth is that Apple's wasn't the first GUI out there and the original Microsoft team worked with Apple. Apple however was the first to market and first to make a viable case for GUI's in the personal computing world. That said, Windows has been playing catch up with Apple ever since.)

When he was forced out of Apple he created NeXT and bought out a tiny animation studio called Pixar. It is largely due to his visionary ideals that Pixar is what it is today. And when he came back to Apple as it floundered in the marketplace creeping towards almost certain death, he turned it all around.

As the iMac shows, he saw the obsolescence of disk drives several years before the competition did. And the iMac paved the way for single component home computers going from the colourful little dome-shaped devices, to the flatscreen on a half-basketball device to the all in one monitor and computer.

His love for music saw the rise of the iPod which revolutionized portable music players. The iTunes store changed how music is sold in a simple way that even record companies came to appreciate.

Then there was the iPhone. While the Blackberry and Palm were well established, the iPhone with it's fully touch screen functionality and integration with music playback turned the smartphone market on its head. It is now in regular competition with Google's Android phone market for the top spot.

And of course we have the iPad. Tablet PC's when introduced were largely considered as strange computers for tech geeks and nobody else. Leave it to Apple to come up with a device so user-friendly and intuitive with complete cross-relation to its iPod and iPhone technologies as to become an instant hit. And while many other tablets have come to market (and some have already gone) the iPad is still the market leader.

I have used Apple products almost exclusively (school and work account for the "almost" part) for the past seventeen years. As a computer geek who has ripped apart and built PC's and has worked with every version of Windows since Windows 3 was released, my adoration for Mac's OS has grown stronger with every buggy version of Windoze.

I use my MacBook at work because it is the only thing fast and intuitive enough in its design to keep up with how I think. The ability to jump between screens and interact on multiple levels at the same time is wonderful. The instantaneous Finder and the Quicklook preview features makes my work life a breeze.

I'm a musician. I compose, record, mix and produce my band's music on Macs. There really is no comparison when comparing Windows music software to the same software on a Mac. The performance difference is undeniable.

I'm a writer. I've written several screenplays on my Mac.

I use my MacBook to watch movies while traveling. I use my iPod everyday as I commute to work.

I have been on the verge of getting my first smartphone for the past few months. I was waiting until this month as I knew the next version of the iPhone was going to be available. And when I see what Apple's Siri software does, acting as a virtual assistant that runs on voice command doing everything you want it to do in calling, texting and scheduling, I honestly can't wait.

I love the iPad and can see so many uses in my future. The compatibility between it and several music applications I use is perfect. It's ability as an e-reader and video playback device is fantastic.

And I have to say, Pixar has created some of my favourite films over the past twenty years.

When I look over my life and how Steve Jobs has played a part in almost everything I do, it is almost unfathomable.

How do you measure that?

He was a leader. He was an innovator. He was a pioneer. He was brave in the face of being cast out of his own company. He persisted and created other great things. He was vindicated in being brought back to run his own company.

He had a hand in changing the experience of every computer user in the world regardless of the operating system. He changed the world of music.

I am sad to see Steve Jobs go. There will never be another person quite like him.

Creative Accounting and the Toronto Budget

Previously, I mentioned the abysmal track record of David Miller who left Toronto's debt and annual budget 50 percent higher only seven years after he arrived. As such, it isn't very difficult to understand how every year he would have posted larger and larger budget shortfalls.

The budget before David Miller took office had a projected shortfall of $128.9 million. David Miller's first budget in 2004 had a project shortfall of $344 million. In 2005, it rose to $400 million. In 2006, $532 million. In 2007, $575 million. In 2008, $415 million. And in 2009, $679 million.

Notice how most of the time the shortfall got higher and higher and never once got into the arena of a surplus? Even after the introduction of the Vehicle Registration and Land Transfer Taxes as well as a 3% property tax hike, the 2009 budget deficit continued to bloom.

And yet in 2010, shortly before his departure, David Miller was able to pull off a magic trick of going from continuous and at times record deficits into a $250 million surplus. He even found an extra $100 million in a sock drawer in City Hall just before he left office.

It's a miracle!

Present Mayor Rob Ford, having already toasted the Vehicle Registration and Land Transfer taxes, is projecting a $774 million budget shortfall for 2011. Of course, Ford opponents are up in arms suggesting he has been lying about the "gravy train" spending down at City Hall and that he somehow has created a $1 billion turnaround in Toronto's financial situation.

Now, I don't believe government budgets. I'm of the mindset that budgets are one part accounting and three parts political theatre and always assume that whoever is in power is going to be playing creative accounting to make their opponents look bad and themselves look good. But looking at the numbers, one very interesting thing popped into my mind...

It's really hard to believe that with no major spending cuts Miller could push Toronto's financials $1 billion upwards over the course of one year during the worst recession since the Great Depression. It's equally hard to believe that having actually decreased spending Rob Ford could push Toronto's financials $1 billion downwards even with ridding Toronto of two of David Miller's tax grabs.

However, if the shortfall in 2009 was $680 million and let's say hypothetically that nothing actually did change going into 2010's budget and the surplus was creative accounting. And let's also say hypothetically that Miller honestly did find $100 million.

Using 2009's numbers that would put the budget shortfall at $580 million. That's roughly $200 million less than this year's projected shortfall. Coincidentally, $200 million is precisely what was taken out of city revenues with Rob Ford's cancellation of the vehicle registration and land transfer taxes.

It's almost like David Miller's last budget shortfall never did turn into a surplus and this year's increased shortfall was entirely because of the Vehicle Registration and Land Transfer Tax elimination.

But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Anti floor-crossing bill and the Titanic's deck chairs

There has been some talk recently about NDP MP Peter Stoffer's attempts to pass a bill that would prevent MP's from leaving one party to join another party in the House of Commons... commonly referred to as floor-crossing. It is his and many other people's belief that if a person is elected under the banner of one party, for them to leave that party and join another is a betrayal of the constituents who elected that MP.

Nonsense.

The problem is not in whether a person leaves one party and joins another. The problem is with the whole concept of parties in general.

Citizens are voting for parties. Not for ideas. Not for MP's who live in the area and understand both the needs and how to best represent the interests of the constituents. They are voting for parties.

The recent election of countless placeholder NDP MP's in Quebec is indicative of the real problem here. How is it possible that people who have never set foot in an area can become the functional leader of that area?

The fact that the focus is on the party and not on the individual best suited to represent the local constituents is a betrayal of the whole concept of local representation in government. Local constituents are no longer voting for local representation. They are voting largely for the image and rhetoric and not for needs and ideas.

I have no sympathy for this bill because it is nothing but rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Party focused systems of government are the problem, not whether a person decides that the best interests for their constituents lies in voting or even sitting with the government.

If he or anybody else has a problem with MP's deciding that it is better to be part of the government who makes decisions affecting their local constituency rather than part of a party on the sidelines, then the solution is simple. Don't ban floor-crossing. Ban the concept of parties. That would take care of two birds with one stone.

No more placeholder candidates.

No more floor-crossing.

Just a return to the real purpose of local representation.