I found your seemingly unquestioning acceptance of the mantra "climate change produces (more) forest fires" to be out of sync with your usual analytical and skeptical stance on most other things. Wildfires have been around as long as forests have.
1) You agreed that certain trees and plants in wildfire areas have EVOLVED to possess fire adaptations: some pines have serotinous cones which open up with fire to release the seeds, some plants have tough seeds which lie dormant until fire produces germination, some trees/plants have extensive root systems which re-sprout after fire, some trees have thick specialized bark which resists heat and fire. Evolution doesn't occur overnight - it takes millennia. From before people were here to be exact.
2) Examples: The "prairie" provinces are classified as semi-arid. Always have been. The BC interior and parts of Yukon and NWT fit this description too. Recently devised "climate change" has not produced this, despite the wailings otherwise. Naturally occurring variations in rainfall and lightning strikes mean some years have very high numbers of fires, other years have lower numbers. These variations would naturally occur in eastern provinces too.
3) Government fire suppression in the 20th century caused a decrease in wildfire size and occurrence and increased accumulation of deadfall (fuel for fires), especially within range of populated areas, enhancing the ease with which wildfires can start and spread.
4) Public perceptions: Population growth means more towns and populated rural areas are endangered by wildfires, which means wildfires are in people's minds when they occur. Many years ago before numbers/size of all fires were accurately recorded, more wildfires were safely ignored and not in the news at all.
5) Any even cursory research will show that "climate change" has ALWAYS BEEN ONGOING in the history of the earth, is enormously complicated and interacts with many other complex scientific realities. We are presently in an interglacial period which would have happened with or without people's involvement. Not as simple as those who are making $$ megabillions in climate change industries would have us believe.
PS: I'm not a mindless climate change denier but neither do I believe all the propaganda the "science is settled" crowd likes to use to suppress reasonable discussion and invade school curriculums. Science is ongoing, is never "settled."
Just a quick comment on your preambles.....a lot of times you start off apologizing for being late or missing a week or not having a video or whatever. If you didn't say these things, I would have no idea anything was amiss. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I read a lot of substacks among many other online sources and yours is definitely one of my favourites. But I'm not pining for its release on whatever day is scheduled (I honestly don't know) and I'm happy to read it whenever it shows up. You don't need to keep telling me there's something wrong with it. All the best.....
Love the section about the fires and climate. Completely accurate in assessing the complexity of climate influence on wildfire season - and gives the appropriate "don't even start" energy for our American friends. As another Swift fan, I'll also have fun quoting her here: "So yeah, it's a fire, it's a goddamn blaze in the dark, and you started it."
Funny how lately it's the so-called conspiracies that turn out to have a lot of truth in them. No wonder there's no trust in our institutions these days.
While it is entirely plausible that Johnston’s resignation was an impulsive Friday afternoon act, that flies in the face of most other government late-Friday announcements, a hangover from the old print-only news times when anything of the sort could be expected to be lost in the slow weekend period -- no such luck any more, the comfortably aging bureaucratic elites just haven’t evolved with the “always there-ness” of the digital age. But to my main point -- I think it’s just a little too cute that Trudeau Junior shows up soon after in Ukraine to make a meaningless announcement that Canada will be sending more aid to add to the measly crumbs that haven’t shown up yet. What’s that Showboat doing war-porn tourism in Ukraine when Zelenskyy has a frickin’ counter-offensive to manage? That galling narcissism is better explained that Junior didn’t want to be available and could let Leblanc take the first crack at damage control.
That was a delight to read....mostly because the Trudeau situation has become so pathetic, you have to laugh at it. I feel sorry for David Johnston. He made a mistake, but the price he's paying is out of whack with the error.
The eco-terrorist argument is too stupid to live. Human stupidity is not. Be it people being observed throwing their butts out the car window 5 miles from Nova Scotia's biggest fire in history, to the dullards who still don;t know that campfire is out when you're comfortable running your fingers through the ashes.
I wonder if ministers, MPs, bureaucrats and especially candidate rapporters will stay clear of this PMO in fear of ending up as additional detritus (like Jane Philpot, Jody Wilson-Raybould, Michael Wernick, Bill Morneau)?
"All the experts agree that Canada is having more fires than usual and that they are in part caused by manmade climate change" is just the current "Covid is dangerous to children, the vaccines are beneficial to everyone, natural immunity doesn't work but lockdowns and masks do".
With enough censorship and government and foundation money, "the Science" will say whatever the government wants.
The actual truth is that I don't know if there are more fires than usual (in the east, the smoke in cities could be caused by an unusual North to South wind pattern) or, if there are, what fraction were caused by arson, and neither do you.
But if I had spent the last 3 years believing things now disproven, simply because of government propaganda, I would be a little more circumspect now.
Dominic Lablanc simply does not care. Liberals have been wagging the dog for so long it must be their innate belief they can do whatever, whenever and no one is ever gonna stop them.
I get a kick out of the CBC coverage of the Johnston resignation. Took less than 30 minutes for the anchor to remind people that Johnston is the kind of guy to accept a task from the PM, reiterated by a talking head and again repeated by the anchor. That’s the line. He was simply doing his duty and the mean opposition got in his way. Straight from the CBC within an hour of the announcement.
The subscriber engagement in the weekly Dispatch posts has steadily decreased since the decision was made to ban commenting on the regular posts (and to temporarily restrict comments on the Dispatch). It is quite obvious to me - as a subscriber - why that is. The inability to provide any kind of feedback or additional information/perspectives when I read a regular post is extremely demotivating. And ultimately it just makes me lose interest in participating in any kind of discussion here - not that there are many opportunities to do so in the first place.
I had noted in a previous dispatch that one major differentiator that The Line has in its favor is the editors (and previously the writers of each post) actually responding to and participating in the discussion. It builds a sense of community on this Substack that is simply not available anywhere else. But right now, this Substack's only differentiation is the type of content. I hope the editors realize that building a Substack around a community discussing and exchanging ideas - where regular folks like me feel heard - is far more powerful than whatever content you may publish here - however good it may be.
The biggest irony (bordering on mockery) I experienced regarding this was when I realized that the only place I could comment on a Jen Gerson post was through my Globe and Mail subscription on her posts there. That is just plain embarrassing.
I sincerely request the editors to open commenting on the regular posts in addition to the Dispatch. Feel free to add restrictions initially (single thread, no replies, open only for 2 days, etc). But at least let a trial run take place and see how it goes.
Your comment, “In our view, that’s one resignation too few” is absolutely spot on. You can say that the remaining required resignation is that of JT as leader of his party but I feel that it should actually be a resignation submitted to the GG together with a request for an election.
An election. Ug! And our resulting choices: double UG!!
But an election resulting from a resignation would be an honorable (can I use that word to describe JT?) way to proceed.
You further comment, “Canada, sadly, needs better than any of them have at late been willing to offer” and I absolutely concur. None of the parties have been sufficiently responsible and, I fear, none of them will change in this respect. Of course, the party in power has the particular, I say PARTICULAR, responsibility to act as the adults in the room rather than acting as five year olds. If the opposition wishes to act in a juvenile fashion that is on them, but the government of the day MUST act as adults. Except, of course, that this government refuses to govern in an adult fashion.
You assert that, “… the Liberals are so bunker-bound and convinced of their own persecution …” To be ever so (overly and stupidly) polite about that Liberal perception: balderdash. It is we, the citizens of Canada, who have been persecuted by the Liberals.
“… not a serious country …” Matthew, you have made this assertion many, many times over the recent past. I wish that I could disagree with you but it is clear that you are blindingly accurate. Truthfully, I believe that the Laurentian mind set will attempt to run things ad infinitum and that the only thing that can change that is the dissolution of the country. Actually, dissolution would leave the Laurentians in control of the O & Q axis but if dissolution does come, we in the West would need to watch that we do not become similarly controlled by a successor Family Compact, to use an archaic but traditional and accurate phrase. [Oh, yes, to be clear, any potential dissolution of the country would, in my opinion, be the West leaving the rest; I am convinced that Q will never leave.]
What if the reason the Liberals are resisting a more serious inquiry isn’t simply partisanship, but rather that there was knowledge of Chinese interference and they didn’t act for political advantage? This is a government so convinced of its own righteousness and importance that they’ve done all sorts of things to try to tighten their grasp on power (like trying to get unlimited fiscal authority at the start of the pandemic, for example.). Why would we assume that they wouldn’t permit something they perceived as a political advantage given their tendency to conflate partisan interest with the national interest? Although there isn’t hard evidence that Chinese influence actually affected the result of the election, it’s the sort of thing that partisans tend to believe to be plausible, whether they’re the victims or beneficiaries.
I wish that someone (anyone) in any opposition party would just suggest that we get a non-Canadian to oversee a public inquiry. Better to get a disinterested retired judge from New Zealand or another Five Eyes partner to oversee the whole thing.
It didn't take long did it? We can expect at least another four years of Danielle Smith's crackpot pontifications. Maybe the new Alberta Provincial Police can track down the elusive eco-terrorists.
The Johnston situation is an interesting glimpse into the mindset of the Laurentian elite. These guys have been drinking their own bathwater for so long, they think the resultant tummy aches are just normal.
I found your seemingly unquestioning acceptance of the mantra "climate change produces (more) forest fires" to be out of sync with your usual analytical and skeptical stance on most other things. Wildfires have been around as long as forests have.
1) You agreed that certain trees and plants in wildfire areas have EVOLVED to possess fire adaptations: some pines have serotinous cones which open up with fire to release the seeds, some plants have tough seeds which lie dormant until fire produces germination, some trees/plants have extensive root systems which re-sprout after fire, some trees have thick specialized bark which resists heat and fire. Evolution doesn't occur overnight - it takes millennia. From before people were here to be exact.
2) Examples: The "prairie" provinces are classified as semi-arid. Always have been. The BC interior and parts of Yukon and NWT fit this description too. Recently devised "climate change" has not produced this, despite the wailings otherwise. Naturally occurring variations in rainfall and lightning strikes mean some years have very high numbers of fires, other years have lower numbers. These variations would naturally occur in eastern provinces too.
3) Government fire suppression in the 20th century caused a decrease in wildfire size and occurrence and increased accumulation of deadfall (fuel for fires), especially within range of populated areas, enhancing the ease with which wildfires can start and spread.
4) Public perceptions: Population growth means more towns and populated rural areas are endangered by wildfires, which means wildfires are in people's minds when they occur. Many years ago before numbers/size of all fires were accurately recorded, more wildfires were safely ignored and not in the news at all.
5) Any even cursory research will show that "climate change" has ALWAYS BEEN ONGOING in the history of the earth, is enormously complicated and interacts with many other complex scientific realities. We are presently in an interglacial period which would have happened with or without people's involvement. Not as simple as those who are making $$ megabillions in climate change industries would have us believe.
PS: I'm not a mindless climate change denier but neither do I believe all the propaganda the "science is settled" crowd likes to use to suppress reasonable discussion and invade school curriculums. Science is ongoing, is never "settled."
Just a quick comment on your preambles.....a lot of times you start off apologizing for being late or missing a week or not having a video or whatever. If you didn't say these things, I would have no idea anything was amiss. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I read a lot of substacks among many other online sources and yours is definitely one of my favourites. But I'm not pining for its release on whatever day is scheduled (I honestly don't know) and I'm happy to read it whenever it shows up. You don't need to keep telling me there's something wrong with it. All the best.....
Love the section about the fires and climate. Completely accurate in assessing the complexity of climate influence on wildfire season - and gives the appropriate "don't even start" energy for our American friends. As another Swift fan, I'll also have fun quoting her here: "So yeah, it's a fire, it's a goddamn blaze in the dark, and you started it."
Funny how lately it's the so-called conspiracies that turn out to have a lot of truth in them. No wonder there's no trust in our institutions these days.
While it is entirely plausible that Johnston’s resignation was an impulsive Friday afternoon act, that flies in the face of most other government late-Friday announcements, a hangover from the old print-only news times when anything of the sort could be expected to be lost in the slow weekend period -- no such luck any more, the comfortably aging bureaucratic elites just haven’t evolved with the “always there-ness” of the digital age. But to my main point -- I think it’s just a little too cute that Trudeau Junior shows up soon after in Ukraine to make a meaningless announcement that Canada will be sending more aid to add to the measly crumbs that haven’t shown up yet. What’s that Showboat doing war-porn tourism in Ukraine when Zelenskyy has a frickin’ counter-offensive to manage? That galling narcissism is better explained that Junior didn’t want to be available and could let Leblanc take the first crack at damage control.
That was a delight to read....mostly because the Trudeau situation has become so pathetic, you have to laugh at it. I feel sorry for David Johnston. He made a mistake, but the price he's paying is out of whack with the error.
The eco-terrorist argument is too stupid to live. Human stupidity is not. Be it people being observed throwing their butts out the car window 5 miles from Nova Scotia's biggest fire in history, to the dullards who still don;t know that campfire is out when you're comfortable running your fingers through the ashes.
I wonder if ministers, MPs, bureaucrats and especially candidate rapporters will stay clear of this PMO in fear of ending up as additional detritus (like Jane Philpot, Jody Wilson-Raybould, Michael Wernick, Bill Morneau)?
"All the experts agree that Canada is having more fires than usual and that they are in part caused by manmade climate change" is just the current "Covid is dangerous to children, the vaccines are beneficial to everyone, natural immunity doesn't work but lockdowns and masks do".
With enough censorship and government and foundation money, "the Science" will say whatever the government wants.
The actual truth is that I don't know if there are more fires than usual (in the east, the smoke in cities could be caused by an unusual North to South wind pattern) or, if there are, what fraction were caused by arson, and neither do you.
But if I had spent the last 3 years believing things now disproven, simply because of government propaganda, I would be a little more circumspect now.
Dominic Lablanc simply does not care. Liberals have been wagging the dog for so long it must be their innate belief they can do whatever, whenever and no one is ever gonna stop them.
I get a kick out of the CBC coverage of the Johnston resignation. Took less than 30 minutes for the anchor to remind people that Johnston is the kind of guy to accept a task from the PM, reiterated by a talking head and again repeated by the anchor. That’s the line. He was simply doing his duty and the mean opposition got in his way. Straight from the CBC within an hour of the announcement.
The subscriber engagement in the weekly Dispatch posts has steadily decreased since the decision was made to ban commenting on the regular posts (and to temporarily restrict comments on the Dispatch). It is quite obvious to me - as a subscriber - why that is. The inability to provide any kind of feedback or additional information/perspectives when I read a regular post is extremely demotivating. And ultimately it just makes me lose interest in participating in any kind of discussion here - not that there are many opportunities to do so in the first place.
I had noted in a previous dispatch that one major differentiator that The Line has in its favor is the editors (and previously the writers of each post) actually responding to and participating in the discussion. It builds a sense of community on this Substack that is simply not available anywhere else. But right now, this Substack's only differentiation is the type of content. I hope the editors realize that building a Substack around a community discussing and exchanging ideas - where regular folks like me feel heard - is far more powerful than whatever content you may publish here - however good it may be.
The biggest irony (bordering on mockery) I experienced regarding this was when I realized that the only place I could comment on a Jen Gerson post was through my Globe and Mail subscription on her posts there. That is just plain embarrassing.
I sincerely request the editors to open commenting on the regular posts in addition to the Dispatch. Feel free to add restrictions initially (single thread, no replies, open only for 2 days, etc). But at least let a trial run take place and see how it goes.
An excellent dispatch, folks.
Your comment, “In our view, that’s one resignation too few” is absolutely spot on. You can say that the remaining required resignation is that of JT as leader of his party but I feel that it should actually be a resignation submitted to the GG together with a request for an election.
An election. Ug! And our resulting choices: double UG!!
But an election resulting from a resignation would be an honorable (can I use that word to describe JT?) way to proceed.
You further comment, “Canada, sadly, needs better than any of them have at late been willing to offer” and I absolutely concur. None of the parties have been sufficiently responsible and, I fear, none of them will change in this respect. Of course, the party in power has the particular, I say PARTICULAR, responsibility to act as the adults in the room rather than acting as five year olds. If the opposition wishes to act in a juvenile fashion that is on them, but the government of the day MUST act as adults. Except, of course, that this government refuses to govern in an adult fashion.
You assert that, “… the Liberals are so bunker-bound and convinced of their own persecution …” To be ever so (overly and stupidly) polite about that Liberal perception: balderdash. It is we, the citizens of Canada, who have been persecuted by the Liberals.
“… not a serious country …” Matthew, you have made this assertion many, many times over the recent past. I wish that I could disagree with you but it is clear that you are blindingly accurate. Truthfully, I believe that the Laurentian mind set will attempt to run things ad infinitum and that the only thing that can change that is the dissolution of the country. Actually, dissolution would leave the Laurentians in control of the O & Q axis but if dissolution does come, we in the West would need to watch that we do not become similarly controlled by a successor Family Compact, to use an archaic but traditional and accurate phrase. [Oh, yes, to be clear, any potential dissolution of the country would, in my opinion, be the West leaving the rest; I am convinced that Q will never leave.]
What if the reason the Liberals are resisting a more serious inquiry isn’t simply partisanship, but rather that there was knowledge of Chinese interference and they didn’t act for political advantage? This is a government so convinced of its own righteousness and importance that they’ve done all sorts of things to try to tighten their grasp on power (like trying to get unlimited fiscal authority at the start of the pandemic, for example.). Why would we assume that they wouldn’t permit something they perceived as a political advantage given their tendency to conflate partisan interest with the national interest? Although there isn’t hard evidence that Chinese influence actually affected the result of the election, it’s the sort of thing that partisans tend to believe to be plausible, whether they’re the victims or beneficiaries.
I wish that someone (anyone) in any opposition party would just suggest that we get a non-Canadian to oversee a public inquiry. Better to get a disinterested retired judge from New Zealand or another Five Eyes partner to oversee the whole thing.
Your headline should have been the closing line from the podcast: "We could have talked about Aliens". All the best.
It didn't take long did it? We can expect at least another four years of Danielle Smith's crackpot pontifications. Maybe the new Alberta Provincial Police can track down the elusive eco-terrorists.
The Johnston situation is an interesting glimpse into the mindset of the Laurentian elite. These guys have been drinking their own bathwater for so long, they think the resultant tummy aches are just normal.