Carbon politics

There are no words to describe the gratitude I have for those of you that responded to our annual November Readers’ Survey.

Kerry Knudsen

This is the main tool we have to demonstrate to advertisers that you are real, you are reading and you care. No other magazine in the market can come close you as an energized, responsive and loyal audience.

An interesting point was demonstrated in the “Comments” you provided at the end of the survey. Of the 29 respondents that took the extra time after the objective portion of the survey was over, all were positive except one — one that chided us for pointing out failings in our competitors. And in that one are some fascinating facts.

First, we promise you that we don’t track your responses and we don’t provide your information to anybody. This is true. However, we can, if we choose to allocate the resources, trace the identity of somebody we think is a fraud, a troll or an instigator. In this case, the respondent was so far off the entire universe of all the other respondents, we decided to do the trace. Therefore, I can report with confidence that the renegade respondent is not a reader, at all, and had no business trying to invade and private survey and skew the results. He is an employee of one of our European machinery suppliers.

For what it’s worth, the professional standards of publishing actually require that publishers point out breaches of ethics by other publishers. The reasons for this, in short form, include that publishers are almost beyond the law because of the protections we are given by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but there are no mechanisms to protect the market from predatory, commercial and unprincipled publishers. In fact, if I failed to call out such breaches of professional conduct, I would be guilty of offending the standard that requires me to report.

So much for competitors. Let’s talk politics. From time to time we get a comment on the website that we should never talk about politics in a trade magazine. That sympathy has infested the main current of trade-magazine publishing, and just look what’s happened!

(As an aside, just check and see how many times in the last 20 years I have used an exclamation point.)

You can see what’s happened to Ontario as the result of ignoring politics, and you will hear the echo of Wood Industry columns gone by. In addition to this story, we are facing provincial and federal carbon taxes, encroaching union control, fines or jail for not recognizing that the woman you hired is actually a man and so on…. Our political world has become nothing more or less than the tea party in Alice in Wonderland.

The carbon tax is of particular interest, since it is affecting much of Canada since the 1st, and will affect the rest, soon. But has anybody really thought about it? We should, since wood is about a carbon as you can get. Just wondering… since you work all day with carbon, how many Wood Industry readers were asked by the governments for input?

None, I’d guess, since we all know that the carbon tax is a reaction to Global Climate Change (GCC) — a concept that remains to be defined in understandable terms — and has nothing to do with reason.

In an effort to understand GCC, I often ask people what the largest contributor to climate change is. Universally, they mistrust the question and become either very confused or very evasive. So I’ll tell you. The largest contributor to GCC is the sun. No question. But the proponents of GCC pooh-pooh the idea of the sun being a contributor to climate change because the sun, they maintain, is a “constant,” and they want to look at such “variables” as cars, the oceans, feeding poor children through agriculture and cow farts.

However, any astronomer will tell you the sun’s energy is not a constant. You can figure the effects of that out for yourself. Look up Red Giant. Anyway, the entire argument of GCC is based on a false premise. That means it’s invalid. Nada. Cow pooh-pooh. BS.

Anything that follows from the false premise is invalid, so there is no man-made GCC. For what it’s worth, this is not internet boilerplate, and I did not get it from someone else. It’s just the way I count it. Still, we get to pay the government. How does nonpolitical evolution look now?


  1. Elmer Halvorson says:

    Back in the ’50s we were taught that the world goes through changes approx every 6000 yrs. The last ice age was about 6000 years ago so we are at the end of a warming period. It may only last another 200 years but it will turn and the earth will start getting colder. That is what I believe.

Speak Your Mind