Site Plan Review Application - Concord: Fill & Download for Free

No, the American health care system is absolutely not superior to many single-payer systems. The incredibly high cost of US health care is in no way funding better care or even more innovation. That’s my answer. The rest is very long detail…I confess that I have not read them all, but many answers here are of personal experience. These are telling. For my part, while I have many personal stories, being a dual French-American citizen, I’ll respond in a more general way (and borrow freely from other answers I’ve made about this topic).For over 25 years I have worked with the healthcare industry, across more than fifty countries. I was an executive with a large multinational service provider to the healthcare world and have created two different companies myself with offices in a number of countries including France, the United States, Japan and China, all serving the healthcare industry. By no means do I have all the answers, but I do have a certain perspective on things.First, US healthcare is expensive. It’s very expensive. It’s by far the most expensive of any healthcare on the planet in terms of how much is spent as a percentage of GDP and how much is spent on average per patient. Healthcare in the United States costs roughly twice per patient as it does in France, for example, and France is on the slightly more expensive side as compared to other European countries.What does that buy Americans? Well, let’s take a look at some of the numbers. The two main sources for these figures include the World Health Organization’s 2018 world health report[1] and especially, the OECD’s health statistics for 2018[2]. I encourage you to examine both (note that most of the comparative statistics are drawn from the second source, which makes for easier comparing given the purpose of the report and the way the data is structured).I thought I would consider a few stats and I chose them on the basis of what I know about the different systems, but promised myself I would draw the comparisons whether or not they turned out to support my contention or not. I chose the following:Cancer survival ratesLife expectancyInfant mortalityMaternal mortality in childbirthPatient experiencePost-surgery complicationsDeath rate from diabetesNote that I tried not to measure things like disease prevalence, since Americans do tend to have lifestyles that are considerably more unhealthy than many other countries and arguably, this is not a function of the healthcare system (although you might consider it to be so, but that’s another debate). So, what do the numbers say?Cancer survivalThere are a lot of different cancers, so I thought I’d check a few.Colon cancer (5-year net survival), the USA comes out 11th, at 64.9% (after countries like Canada, Australia, Sweden, Belgium, South Korea, etc).Leukemia. There are a number of different types of leukemia, but I thought I’d look at survival rates for childhood AML. This too took some searching, but I found a paper from the Lancet that compared national survival rates (2009)[3]. I focused on AML (a type of leukemia) just so as to not dig through too much data, and the data was pretty good for that. The United States is not the worst of the OECD countries, but it’s below average, with a net five-year survival rate of 63.3%, as compared to 71.8% for Canada, 69.4% for France and 68.1% for the UK. Aside from the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain, all Western European countries (as well as Japan) outperform the United States.Breast cancer. Good news, the United States slightly leads the world in breast cancer survival, with a 5-year survival rate of 90.2%. Note that all the industrialised countries reporting data were over 85%, but this is testimony to US breast cancer treatment.The bad news for women is in cervical cancer. While breast cancer survival rate is slightly higher in the United States, five-year cervical cancer survival is very low, at 62.6% compared to Switzerland, Japan, Korea and Norway, which are all over 70% and all of Western Europe, Canada and Australia, all of which are higher than the United States.Life ExpectancySorry, the United States is very low, here, but I think everyone knows that. At 78.7 years, it comes out 28th out of the 34 OECD countries listed (ahead of places like Turkey, Poland and Mexico).We can look more closely at the impact of the healthcare system, though, by examining how many years of life are lost due to various illnesses. If we focus on those that should be rather easily diagnosed then we get a good idea of how much the healthcare system is working.The five major causes of death in the United States are heart disease, cancer, chronic respiratory disease (COPD, asthma, etc), stroke and accidents. I’ll leave accidents out, because they’re accidental. So on average, how many years of life are lost in the United States by the other four and how does that compare to other countries? I’ll cite years lost by 100,000 people, since it’s a little easier to grasp (and because that’s how the OECD reports them).Heart disease. Let’s focus on acute myocardial infarction (what most people think of when they think of heart attacks). The United States stands at 126.9 years lost per 100,000. This is worse than every reporting country in Western Europe. The UK, for example, is at 95.6, France 65.8 and Denmark at 57.3. Australia is at 57 and Canada 88.7.COPD. Here, the United States fares even worse. At least for heart disease it was ahead of Turkey and Greece, but (surprisingly for me) it is the worst country cited except for South Africa and Hungary with 82.2 years lost per 100,00. France does best, with 15 years lost while the UK is at 59.8 and Canada at 33.7. The United States is also worst at asthma years lost.Cancer. Surprisingly difficult to find, but the survival rates cited above are a pretty good indication.Stroke. Very difficult to find good data (at least in the limited time I’m spending on this answer… this is not a doctoral thesis). The United States evidently doesn’t have linked survival data, and unlinked data (which shows the country performing very well) is notoriously unreliable and how the different data sets are compared would vary wildly across countries, hence I tend to discount it.Infant mortalityThe United States really has an appalling record here, with 5.9 deaths for 1000 live births. This is worse than all other OECD nations except Mexico, Turkey and Chile and considerably worse than the UK (3.9) and France (3.7). Scandinavian countries, like Sweden and Finland do best, with rates below 2.2. Note that I also looked at neonatal mortality, to factor out some lifestyle factors and I find exactly the same poor performance.Maternal mortalityThe United States is very, very bad, at 14 per 100,000 live births. No other Western European nation comes close, averaging about 5[4].Treatment forgone due to costThe OECD also reports the percentage of people who have foregone medication or doctor visits due to cost. Not surprisingly, the United States shows by far the highest percentage in both cases as compared to other developed nations, all of which have centralised healthcare.DiabetesAgain, I haven’t considered prevalence of diabetes, but tried to look at how the different healthcare systems manage to treat it. This was a little more difficult, and I had to go outside the main sources, but I did find a 2010 study[5]that compared diabetes care across five countries (Australia, Canada, the USA, the UK and New Zealand). It measured fatality rates from diabetes (specifically, the case fatality ratio) and found the United States to rank fourth out of the five (only New Zealand seems to treat diabetic patients worse). I’d point out that the UK was the best by a long shot. Quite frankly, I have worked extensively in diabetes and this does not surprise me in the least. I’m also quite sure that a number of other European countries probably have as low a case fatality ratio as the UK and if I could find more data I’m confident that most Western European nations have overall better diabetes treatment than the United States.Patient experienceI wanted to focus on wait times, but here I come up blank. There are good measures for wait times in OECD countries except for the United States. I have to assume that this is so highly variable depending on one’s healthcare plan that it’s difficult to gather the data, but I give up. There are a couple of head-to-head studies with Canada in which the United States compares favorably. I can cite my own experiences, in which my French healthcare has given me wait times for diagnostics and interventions that were essentially zero (i.e., as soon as I could do it), but other answers abound with anecdotes and I won’t add to them.One interesting measure on patient experience though is “patients reporting having spent enough time with their regular doctor during the consultation”. There are only twelve countries reporting data (2016), but the United States comes up 9th. Another interesting tidbit is “patients reporting having been involved with decisions about care or treatment by their regular doctor”. The same twelve countries provide data and the United States comes out 7th (the UK comes out 1st). Personally, knowing most the twelve systems myself, this doesn’t surprise me, but I do think that the widespread concept in the United States of centralized healthcare systems being monolithic and impersonal is convincingly debunked when the most centralized system of all, the NHS, comes out on top and well ahead of the United States in both of these measures.Post surgery complicationsThere are a lot of measures here. I looked at post-intervention thrombosis, embolisms, sepsis and even the rate at which foreign bodies are left in patients. I could report them all, but on the whole, the United States comes up about average (the country is pretty good when it comes to preventing post-surgery embolisms after hip replacements, but distressingly bad at leaving foreign bodies in patients). Feel free to access the data and dig in to the details that interest youVerdict on qualityFrankly, on most measures, the United States comes up below average. There are some high points, like breast cancer survival, but some dismally low points. And keep in mind as well that I have in many cases cited measures that are not functions of access to healthcare although granted, it is difficult if not impossible to disassociate access and results. One thing is absolutely for sure though… the answer to the first part of your question, doesn’t the United States have higher quality healthcare is resoundingly, absolutely “no”.Of course, if you dig you might well find that if you are in the top quintile, or perhaps decile of earners, you have very high quality healthcare, at least as good as in the rest of the developed world. I wouldn’t be surprised if this were the case. I’m convinced, given my (again, rather vast) international experience that it wouldn’t be systematically better than it would be in Western Europe, Japan, or other developed centralized healthcare systems, but I’m sure at least it wouldn’t be worse. If your personal political philosophy is therefore that the poor are poor through some fault of their own and should be left to wither and die then the American system might be OK with you. I would find that philosophy to be morally abhorrent, but that’s a different topic.One thing’s for sure, though, even if you are rich, accessing that healthcare is going to cost you far, far more than the taxes you’d pay for healthcare in France (comparing total healthcare expenditures to patient populations).Which leads to the second question… why is US healthcare so expensive? Is it because of research?Here, I’m borrowing from other posts of mine, but let’s take a look at pharmaceutical research. First of all, pretty much all the pharmaceutical companies in the world are true multinationals. Of the top twenty, ten are American, so half. Of the top fifty, fifteen are American, so 30%. I haven’t actually looked at NDAs (new drug applications) but I’d bet that the origin of those NDAs in terms of research would probably be about 40% from American companies, in line with the split of the companies by revenue. Someone can look that up if they like.But even that is misleading, because the national origin of a pharma company doesn’t have a heck of lot to do with where its business comes from. Pfizer made more revenues outside the United States than inside for every one of the last ten years[6]. And, of course, the number two and three companies are both Swiss - I can assure you that their revenues in Switzerland are essentially insignificant compared to the rest of the world. There are very few industries that are international as pharma and where a company is based is almost irrelevant; they are all international (with a number of exceptions, notably some of the large generics companies and Japanese pharma tends not to travel too well, except for Takeda).So, really, honestly, medical R&D is probably the most international R&D you can possibly imagine and the overwhelming majority of spending is carried out by truly international concerns, most of which are not based in the United States.So, the answer to the second part of your question, “don’t we make more scientific innovations” is likewise a resounding “no”.So why is American healthcare so incredibly expensive? Again, there are good and inevitably complicated answers to this, but the fundamental reason is that while the invisible hand of Adam Smith leads to greater efficiency in most cases, it leads to a big steaming expensive mess in healthcare. There is no demand curve in the traditional sense of the concept and there is an incredible disequilibrium of information between providers and consumers. This leads to a situation in which a standard pricing analysis for drugs, for example, leads an economist to propose essentially infinite prices for any life-saving drug (OK, at least “as much money as the consumer has”). Drugs typically cost twice as much in the United States as compared to other developed nations, where a centralized, governmental buyer negotiates. Does this lead to substandard care? Well, go back up there and read the first part of this answer.Drug costs, however, are not the primary cause of the difference. Drugs typically make up a small part of healthcare expenditures. What about salaries? American GPs do tend to earn more than those in other countries. It seems, for example, that general practitioners in the United States earn on average (in 2011) $198,740[7]. Compare this to France, where a GP earns $102,186[8] and the UK, where he or she earns $116,967[9] . Surgeons, however, in the United States earn on average $252,910[10] compared to $314,812 in France[11]. It’s difficult to find data for the UK, but various job sites seem to indicate that surgeons earn about $120,000, which seems strange to me (I doubt GPs earn as much as surgeons). It seems, though, that physician salaries probably aren’t the main factor here.There is, of course, the profits of health insurance providers (apparently about $13 billion in 2016) which pretty much by definition don’t exist in centralized systems (that’s not entirely true - there is often light supplemental insurance in centralized countries: mine covers things like fancier eyeglasses and private hospital rooms if we get ill, or copayments for some drugs, but all costs relating to serious illnesses are covered 100%). There is also the cost of liability insurance, which is crazy in the States, but the primary cost seems to be the underlying inefficiency inherent in trying to create a competitive marketplace in a domain in which classical economic mechanisms just don’t work.For example, consider the administrative costs involved in dealing with the US system. A 2014 study[12] compared adminstrative costs across eight nations and found that the United States far exceeded other nations in hospital administrative costs. They suggested that reducing admin costs in the United States to the levels in Canada or Scotland would have saved $150 billion in 2011… and that’s just hospitalization. A one-payer system is quite simple and requires far less administration. Another element is the proliferation of expensive imaging. A centralized system can determine the optimal distribution of MRI machines, for example, whereas a system in which each hospital competes with each other hospital leads to unwarranted proliferation of machines that can cost many millions of dollars. For example, the United States has the second highest density of MRI machines in the world (after Japan)[13]. At the same time, as I’ve pointed out, I’ve had a number of MRIs in France and never had to wait more than a week, despite living in a country with just a little more than 1/3 the density of MRI machines of the United States. Arguably, the United States needs that many machines at least partly because the liability situation is such that physicians have a tendency to dramatically over test patients so as not to be personally liable for any unforeseen complications. Again, see the first part of this (now too long) answer to assess whether this serves a purpose.Enough, though… your question was not why the US system is more expensive, but whether it’s worth it.No. It is not. I’ll close by saying that in 25 years of working in healthcare across the world I have never — and I do mean never — met a healthcare professional in a developed country outside the United States who expressed an opinion that the US healthcare system was fundamentally better than their own, or that they would prefer such a system, either as a healthcare provider or as a patient. Never. Of course, there are excellent physicians, excellent researchers, and excellent administrators in the United States, some of whom are at the top of their field, and there are institutions like Mass Gen, Sloan Kettering, Johns Hopkins and many others that are references in their field. There are also institutions in the rest of the world that are references in their fields (L’institut Pasteur and L’institut Curie in France, just to name some nearby examples). Happily, professionals in these institutions regularly collaborate and reach across borders to help patients and conduct research. However, the American system quite frankly underperforms on the whole, leads to worse healthcare outcomes and is about twice as expensive as systems in other comparable countries. This is not because it is higher quality or because it carries out more research, it is simply because a non-centralized system is bound to be more expensive in healthcare and is likely to deliver worse results.EDITThis is already very long, but the ever-perspicacious Duncan Stewart added some excellent information in a comment that I thought was well worth posting directly here…Great work Kevin! I think your approach and methodology were exemplary, but in my view you could have added a few extra critical points.Let’s start by agreeing that America pays more than everybody else, at about twice the average of the developed world. And we also agree that not only are they not #1 in terms of outcomes, they are often middle of the pack or even lower. They are NOT getting what they pay for. What do I think you should have added?That disparity is getting worse, and will continue to get worse.US healthcare spending per capita has been growing faster than inflation, but has been mainly under 4% from 2007–2017. Out to 2026 it is forecast to grow around 4.7% per year. How much is health spending expected to grow? - Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker In contrast, Canadian per capita spending is rising about 2.8% per year. National Health Expenditure Trends | CIHILooking at all the various indicators (as you did) is useful, but at the end of the day the ultimate test of effective spending on healthcare is longevity. Horrifyingly, US life expectancy has declined for the last two years. That’s not a typo: The US spends more than any other country, and its citizens have DECREASING life expectancy. US life expectancy drops for second year in a rowNot only is American ABSOLUTE life expectancy falling, but so is their RELATIVE life expectancy. As of 2016, US life expectancy was 43rd best in the world, and by 2040 it is projected to fall to 64th, the largest drop of any developed world country (and will be overtaken by China.) Spain to lead Japan in global life expectancyIt is my fear that the study mentioned in #3 is optimistic: I believe that the US will do even worse than that already dismal forecast. The American medical system is heavily oriented to pills and procedures, and generating profit. New research (well, meta-research) shows that the single biggest factor in living longer is regular, intense exercise: It is more important than obesity, diet, smoking, diabetes or even heart disease. But under the US system, doctors don’t make money by telling patients to exercise harder and more often, and so they won’t tell them that. In countries where medical systems are run on outcomes, not profits. we will likely see better progress. Not exercising worse for your health than smoking, diabetes and heart diseaseThanks again for your research. If Americans only knew how badly served they were by their system, they might change it. But American exceptionalism (the belief that the US is #1 at everything) blinds them to how their system is not only inefficient, but is bad. And getting worse.Footnotes[1] http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/272596/9789241565585-eng.pdf?ua=1[2] OECD Health Statistics 2018[3] Worldwide comparison of survival from childhood leukaemia for 1995–2009, by subtype, age, and sex (CONCORD-2): a population-based study of individual data for 89 828 children from 198 registries in 53 countries[4] http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/272596/9789241565585-eng.pdf?ua=1[5] Comparison of diabetes management in five countries for general and indigenous populations: an internet-based review[6] Pfizer revenue in U.S. and abroad 2009-2017 | Statistic[7] Family and General Practitioners[8] https://www.lequotidiendumedecin.fr/actualites/article/2017/11/22/89-775-euros-hausse-timide-du-revenu-moyen-des-medecins-liberaux-en-2016_852636[9] GP Earnings and Expenses Estimates - 2015/16 - NHS Digital[10] Surgeons[11] Professionnels de santé libéraux : le palmarès des revenus 2016[12] A comparison of hospital administrative costs in eight nations: US costs exceed all others by far.[13] MRI units density by country 2016 | Statistic

Ban on sharia law In The United States.All References are available as a footnote for, this is a copy from the superior court. Last updated 2016. > A ban on sharia law is legislation which prohibits the application of the or implementation of Islamic law (sharia) in courts in any civil (non-religious) jurisdiction In the United States,1 Ban Of Sharia LawThe United States have "banned Sharia law", or passed some kind of ballot measure that "prohibits the states courts from considering foreign, international or religious law." As of 2014 these include Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee.[1] In Canada, Sharia law is explicitly banned in Quebec, upheld by a unanimous vote against it in 2005 by the National Assembly,[2] while the province of Ontario allows family law disputes to be arbitrated only under Ontario law.[3]United States.## Constitutional prohibitions and accommodationsBecause of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, no religious tradition can be established as the basis of laws that apply to everyone, including any form of sharia, Christian canon law, Jewish halakha, or rules of dharma from Eastern religions. Laws must be passed in a secular fashion, not by religious authorities. The Free Exercise Clause allows residents to practice any religion or no religion, and there is often controversy about separation of church and state and the balance between these two clauses when the government does or does not accommodate any particular religious practice (for example blue laws that require stores to be closed on Sunday, the Christian holy day).## Direct consultation of any religious law, including any form of sharia, is relatively rare in U.S. jurisprudence, and is generally limited to circumstances where the government is accommodating the religious belief of a specific person. This occurs mainly in matters of arbitration and family law. For example, the law may allow parties to submit a dispute for binding arbitration to a mutually agreed- upon religious authority; mandatory arbitration by a specified or mutually-agreed arbitrator is also a common clause in commercial and labor union contracts. Couples with the same religious beliefs may wish to construct marriage contracts and conduct divorces in concordance with those beliefs, and people may also wish to arrange wills and other financial matters in accordance with their own religious principles. If presented as evidence, devotion to peaceful religious principles, along with many other aspects of personality, is commonly considered when judging the character of a person before the law, for example during sentencing or a parole hearing.Despite the Free Exercise Clause, the 1878 Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v. United States (which concerned the conflict of the Mormon practice of polygamy with anti-bigamy laws) affirmed that secular laws still apply when they contradict religious practices, unless a superseding law establishes a right to a religious accommodation. This means that belief in sharia cannot be used by itself as a justification for vigilante stonings or to prevent women from filing for divorce.2 Background of controversyIn June 2009, a family court judge in Hudson County, New Jersey denied a restraining order to a woman who testified that her husband, a Muslim, had forced her to have non-consensual sex. The judge said he did notbelieve the man "had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault" his wife because he was acting in a way that was "consistent with his practices." A state appeals court reversed his decision.[4] Advocates of the ban in the U.S. have cited this case as an example of the need for the ban.[5]## As of 2014 more than two dozen U.S. states have considered measures intended to restrict judges from consulting sharia law. Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama and Texas[6][7] have "banned sharia", i.e., passed foreign law bans.[1] In 2010 and 2011 more than two dozen states "considered measures to restrict judges from consulting Shariah, or foreign and religious laws more generally". [8] As of 2013, all but 16 states have considered such a law.[1]In November 2010, voters in Oklahoma approved a ballot measure to amend the state constitution to ban sharia from state courts.[9][10] The law was then updated to include all foreign or religious laws.[11] The law was challenged by an official of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. In November 2010 a federal judge ruled the law to be unconstitutional and blocked the state from putting it into effect.[12][not in citation given][13] The court found the ban had the potential to do harm to Muslims. The invalidation of a will and testament using sharia instructions was an example.[14] That ruling and injunction were upheld by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on January 10, 2012.[15]Missouri also passed a measure banning foreign law in 2013, but Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed the bill "because of its potential impact on international adoptions."[1]Two other states banning sharia were North Carolina, which prohibited state judges from considering Islamic law in family cases in 2013,[16] and Alabama, where voters passed an Amendment to the State Constitution (72% to 28%) to "ban sharia" in 2014.[17]3 SupportersDavid Yerushalmi has been called the founder of the movement in America and is described by The New York Times as "working with a cadre of conservative public-policy institutes and former military and intelligence officials"[8] and to pass legislation, "a network of Tea Party and Christian groups" as well as ACT! for America. [8] According to him, the purpose of the anti-sharia movement is not to pass legislation banning sharia law in the courts but "to get people asking this question, ‘What is Shariah?ʼ”.[8][18]In 2011, Republicans Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann warned about what they saw as the threat of shariah law.[18] During the lead-up to Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign 2012, he described sharia law as a "mortal threat" and called for its ban throughout America.[19] Sarah Palin has been quoted as saying that if shariah law “were to be adopted, allowed to govern in our country, it will be the downfall of America.”[8]At a press conference in the U.S. Capitol,[20] some Republican members of the United States Congress endorsed a new memorandum, based on a Center for Security Policy (CSP) report, Shariah: The Threat to America.4 AnalysisA 2013 report by the Brennan Center for Justice warned that the bans may have the unintended effects of invalidating prenuptial agreements and court decisions made in other states where arbitrators may have taken into account Islamic, Jewish or Catholic legal norms. Randy Brinson, the president of the Christian Coalition of Alabama, criticized the ban in Alabama, calling it "redundant and a waste of time".[1]Historian Justin Tyler Clark argues that the rise of an anti-Sharia movement in the US, more than a decade after the September 11 attacks, is in part a reaction to increasing political correctness in the American society. Clark compares the phenomenon to the 19th century anti-Catholic movement in the US, which, he writes, rose largely in reaction to changes in middle-class American etiquette, interpreted by the nativists as encroachmentof an alien ideology on their own social norms.[21]According to Sadakat Kadri, the ban on sharia laws notwithstanding, "the precepts of Islamic law ... have judicial force in the United States already", among Muslims who have had a dispute settled by Muslim conciliators. The 1925 Federal Arbitration Act allows Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. to use religious tribunals to arbitrate disagreements and "the judgements that result are given force of law by state and federal courts". The statute "preempts inconsistent state legislation", such as laws to ban sharia.[22]For American Jews who choose to obey its rulings, a Beth Din (Rabbinical court) "may not merely decide the legal rights of devout Jews; in some cases it may formally forbid believers from pursuing complaints through the secular judicial system without prior authority from a rabbi. And Muslims can also have their inheritance, business, and matrimonial disputes sorted out by Islamic scholars, who attempt to decide them according to the sharia."[22] While the US Congress could in theory repeal the act, it could not ban arbitration by Muslims while leaving other religious conciliators free to continue their work. "Any reform would have to impact equally on all faith communities, and it is not only Muslims who would object if federal legislators presumed to do that."[22]## CanadaSharia law is explicitly banned in Quebec, upheld by a unanimous vote against it in 2005 by the NationalAssembly.[23]In Ontario there was a "heated 20-month controversy" after Toronto lawyer Syed Mumtaz Ali declared in2004 that an “Islamic Institute of Civil Justice” would begin "arbitrating family matters on the basis of sharia law", accompanied by a warning that Muslims who did not submit cases to Islamic arbitration panels were (according to Ali) not “good Muslims.”[24] In 2005, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty stated, "There will be no sharia law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians." This referred to McGuinty's plan to rescind the 1991 Arbitration Act, which made arbitration decisions according to religious laws enforceable in Ontario courts.[24] Opposing Ali were "anti-tribunal" forces of "politically savvy womenʼs groups, some of them composed of Muslim women", who feared womenʼs equality rights being violated. [24] In 2006, the province of Ontario banned arbitration of family law disputes under any body of laws except Ontario law, in part to prohibit arbitration under religious laws.[3]2❧## Western Europe## United KingdomIn the United Kingdom, Sharia has also become a political issue. A "One law for all" campaign[25] seeks toban sharia councils and arguing this is "the only way to end discrimination suffered by Muslim women".[26] In 2015, the Conservative Party Home Secretary Theresa May called for an investigation into the application of sharia law in England and Wales if Conservatives win the General Election. A day later the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, told a radio interviewer, he was opposed to "a Sharia system running in parallel with UK justice."[27]The issue arose in 2008, when the former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams 'suggested it was "inevitable" that elements of Sharia would be incorporated in British law.' Since then, "Sharia courts" have "never been far from tabloid headlines", according to Myriam Francois-Cerrah.[26] As of 2014, there were reported to be around 85 "shariah courts" in the UK,[26][28] operated by two rival services – Islamic Sharia Council and the newer, smaller, less strict Muslim Arbitration Tribunal.[26][29] The councils/tribunals provide arbitration that is voluntary but legally binding, are "officially mandated" and set up outside the court system[29] like anothernon-secular arbitration institution, the longstanding rabbinical tribunals.[30]The council/tribunals are defended as providing an essential service for pious Muslims who would simplywork with non-government mandated Sharia councils if the government abolished the mandated ones.[26] But they are also criticized for taking the man's side in rulings,[26] for example advising women to forfeit their mahr (marriage dower) in exchange for a divorce.[30][31] According to legal historian Sadakat Kadri, the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has "no jurisdiction over criminal matters or cases involving children." A UK-trained lawyer sits "on all its panels, and every decision" is subject to judicial review – "meaning that it was subject to reversal if it disclosed unfair procedures, human rights violations, or any other step that ordinary court considered contrary to the public interest."[22] According to Kadri, British Muslims neither know nor care about the criminal penalties of Sharia law (tazir and hudud)[22] but seek much less controversial services.A woman whose husband has abandoned her without speaking the words of release required by the Quran might approach a mufti in search of an annulment. Senior figures in a community will pay visits to the homes of disruptive teenagers to remind them of their religious roots. Muslims who are prudent as well as pious might ask scholars to tell them which mortgage and insurance products are consistent with Islamic jurisprudence.[22]In addition to the sharia law of the councils and tribunals, there have also been reports of "vigilante sharia squads" in some places, such as Whitechapel, East London.[29][32] The legal system of the United Kingdom treats these squads as criminals.[33][34]## GermanySharia law is part of Germany's private law through the regulations of the German international private law.[35] Its application is limited by the ordre public.In September 2014, a small group of Muslims wearing mock police uniforms patrolled the streets of the western German city of Wuppertal. They "reportedly hovered around sites like discotheques and gambling houses, telling passers-by to refrain from gambling and alcohol". Following the incident the Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière told the daily newspaper Bild, "Sharia law is not tolerated on German soil."[36] The leader of the "police", Salafist Sven Lau, responded by saying the "sharia police" "never existed" and he only wanted to "raise attention" to sharia. The Central Council of Muslims in Germany (ZMD) condemned the activities.[37]## GreeceThe issue of the supremacy of sharia has arisen in Greece where a Muslim woman (Chatitze Molla Sali), was left her husband's estate in his will (a Greek document registered at a notaryʼs office) when he died in March 2008. Her in- laws immediately challenged the bequest with the local mufti (a Muslim jurist and theologian) in the name of sharia law, "which forbids Muslims to write wills" (Islamic law rather than the inheritee determining who gets what from the estate of the deceased).[38] Molla Sali took the dispute to a civil court where she won, but in October 2013, the Greek Supreme Court ruled against her and "established that matters of inheritance among the Muslim minority must be resolved by the mufti, following Islamic laws", in accordance with the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne between Greece and Turkey. Sali has appealed the decision to the European Court of Human Rights.[38]Muslim-majority countriesAlthough Turkey is a Muslim-majority country, since Kemal Atatürk's reforms and the creation of the Republic of Turkey, Sharia law was banned in 1924 and new westernized civil and penal codes were adopted in 1926.[39][40]In Tunisia some forms of Sharia law were banned.[41] See also 3❧## References s. u. w.> x. y. z. .> s~. ss.> su. sw. sx. sy. sz. s. u~. us. uu.> uw. ux. uy. uz.> u{.> u|. u}.> w~.> ws. wu.> ww. wx.> wy. wz. w. x~.> xs.> ^ a b c d e Farmer, Liz (4 November 2014). "Alabama Joins Wave of States BanningForeign Laws". Governing: State and local government news and analysis. Retrieved 27 August 2015.> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-gives-thumbs-down-to- shariah-law-1.535601> ^ a b Choski, Bilal M. (14 March 2012). "Religious Arbitration in Ontario – Making the Case Based on theBritish Example of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal". University of Pennsylvania Law School. Retrieved 10 December 2015.> "State court throws out religion as defense in case involving husband's non- consensual sex with wife".New Jersey Local News, Breaking News, Sports & Weather. Retrieved 2016-07-15.> Lott, Maxim (5 August 2010). "Advocates of Anti-Shariah Measures Alarmed by Judge's Ruling". FoxNews.> "Muslims are ANGRY at Texas Mayor After She Stops "Sharia Court"... Here Is Her EPIC Response!". ThePolitical Insider. 24 March 2015.> "BOOM! Texas BANS Sharia Law and the First Islamic Sharia Court in the USA is NOT Happy!".> ^ a b c d e Elliott, Andrea (July 30, 2011). "The Man Behind the Anti-Shariah Movement". The New YorkTimes. Retrieved August 9, 2011.> Ure, Laurie (November 1, 2010). "Oklahoma voters face question on Islamic law". CNN. RetrievedNovember 9, 2010.> "Sharia law banned: Oklahoma to become the first U.S. state to veto use of Islamic code". Daily Mail.London. November 2, 2010.> Tanya Somanader Oklahomaʼs New Bill To Block Sharia Law Will Now Ban All Religious Law, HurtBusinesses at ThinkProgress blog of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, March 22, 2011> Michel Martin States Move To Ban Islamic Sharia Law at NPR radio network, March 11, 2011> McKinley Jr, James C. (November 29, 2010). "Judge Blocks Oklahoma's Ban on Using Shariah Law inCourt". The New York Times.> Oklahoma Sharia law ban 'unconstitutional', court rules retrieved 6 February 2012> Eckholm, Erik (January 10, 2012). "Oklahoma: Court Upholds Blocking of Amendment Against ShariahLaw". The New York Times.> North Carolina becomes 7th state to ban Muslim Sharia law| Desert News| August 28, 2013> Alabama Bans Sharia Law, Even Though it Doesnʼt Exist in the State by Robin Marty| by Robin Marty|Care2 is the world's largest social network for good, a community of over 40 million people standing together, starting petitions and sharing stories that inspire action.| November 10, 2014> ^ a b Gross, Terry (August 9, 2011). "Who's Behind The Movement To Ban Shariah Law?". NPR.Retrieved 27 August 2015.> Newt Gingrich: I'd Support A Muslim Running For President Only If They'd Commit To Give Up ShariaHuffington Post. Retrieved 5 February 2012> Daniel Luban Forget 'Ground Zero Mosque', It's the Great Sharia Conspiracy at Inter Press ServiceSeptember 16, 2011> Justin Tyler Clark (Aug 5, 2017). "How political correctness led to Islamophobia". Boston Globe.> ^ a b c d e f Kadri, Sadakat (2012). Heaven on Earth: A Journey Through Shari'a Law from the Deserts ofAncient Arabia . Macmillan. p. 279. ISBN 978-0099523277.> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-gives-thumbs-down-to- shariah-law-1.535601> ^ a b c Simmons, Harvey (14 September 2010). "'One law for all Ontarians' Editorial Opinion". http://Star.com.Retrieved 10 December 2015.> "One Law for All Campaign against Sharia law in Britain". Home. Retrieved 3 September2015.> ^ a b c d e f Francois-Cerrah, Myriam (17 Jul 2014). "Why banning Sharia courts would harm BritishMuslim women". The Telegraph. Retrieved 31 August 2015.> Perring, Rebecca (March 24, 2015). "Boris Johnson: 'Sharia law in the UK is absolutely unacceptable'".Express. Retrieved 31 August 2015.> Islamic Sharia Council Leyton, East London> ^ a b c Graham, David A. (20 January 2015). "Why the Muslim 'No-Go-Zone' Myth Won't Die". TheAtlantic. Retrieved 5 September 2015.> ^ a b "Sharia in the West. Whose law counts most?". The Economist. 14 October 2010. Retrieved 6September 2015.> BBC - Homepage: "Are Sharia councils failing vulnerable women?", 6 April 2013> "London's 'Muslim Patrol' aims to impose Sharia law in East London". CNN. 1 February 2013. Retrieved 5September 2015.> "Muslim vigilantes jailed for 'sharia law' attacks in London". Guardian. London. 6 December 2013.Retrieved 1 May 2014.> Jones, Sam; agency (6 December 2013). "Muslim vigilantes jailed for 'sharia law' attacks in London" – viaThe Guardian.> Jeory, Ted (14 February 2014). "Judge BANS Muslim Patrol vigilantes from promoting SHARIA LAW inBritain". Express. Retrieved 30 April 2014.> Gover, Dominic (14 February 2014). "Ban on 'Muslim Patrols' by Anjem Choudary's East LondonDisciples". International Business Times. Retrieved 1 May 2014.> Vale, Paul (14 March 2014). "Royal Barnes And Rebekah Dawson, British Muslim Converts, Jailed For'Sick' Lee Rigby YouTube Videos". Huffington Post (UK). Retrieved 1 May 2014.> http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/crossing-borders-with- shariah-the-role-of-islamic-law-in-german-courts-a-722477.html> https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/salafismus/bundesregierung-alamiert- ueber-wuppertaler-scharia-polizei-37561412.bild.html> "Germany won't tolerate 'Sharia police'". DW. June 6, 2014. Retrieved 8 September 2015.> ^ a b Volokh, Eugene (April 13, 2015). "The Volokh Conspiracy Muslim woman fighting Sharia law inEurope". Washington Post. Retrieved 4 September 2015.> Janin, Hunt; Kahlmeyer, André (2007). Islamic Law: the Sharia from Muhammad's Time to the Present.McFarland. p. 185. ISBN 0786429216.> Webster, Donald Everett (1939). The Turkey of Atatürk: social process in the Turkish reformation.Philadelphia: The American Academy of Political and Social Science. pp. 107, 127. Retrieved 31 August 2015.

Trudeau lacks depth and clarity and he makes bad policy choices about economics and climate change. Global warming science is not settled and there is no evidence of a climate crisis from runaway higher temperatures. Canada is a very cold country and if there were more global warming this would be a benefit. Trudeau wants to stop more warming and this it plain stupid in light of the shoddy science demonizing minute amounts of CO2 plant food at the same time the weather is record colder and destructive.Kenney wants swift approval from Trudeau for Teck Frontier oilsands mineBY BILL GRAVELAND THE CANADIAN PRESSPosted January 27, 2020 3:00 pm Lloyd RyanTrudeau will kill this project and then send out his Deputy Dawg PM to placate Albertan's with platitudes and "There, there now. We listened to you but you were asking too much" speeches and statements. Jim Carr will be onhand for the event to handout crying towels and tell everyone it's all for the good of the environment and saving the world from Climate Change. The Saudi's will be overjoyed to increase their production and celebrate the stupidity of the Trudeau Liberals.Full news story below90 LEADING ITALIAN SCIENTISTS EXPLAIN THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS OF WARMING.“t should be remembered that the heating observed since 1900 has actually started in the 1700s, i.e. at the minimum of the Little Ice Age , the coldest period of the last 10,000 years (corresponding to the millennial minimum of solar activity that astrophysicists call Maunder Minimal Solar ). Since then, solar activity, following its millennial cycle, has increased by heating the earth’s surface.Furthermore, the models fail to reproduce the known climatic oscillations of about 60 years.These were responsible, for example, for a warming period (1850-1880) followed by a cooling period (1880-1910), a heating (1910-40), a cooling (1940-70) and a a new warming period (1970-2000) similar to that observed 60 years earlier.The following years (2000-2019) saw the increase not predicted by the models of about 0.2 ° C [two one-hundredths of a degree]per decade, but a substantial climatic stability that was sporadically interrupted by the rapid natural oscillations of the equatorial Pacific ocean, known as the El Nino Southern Oscillations , like the one that led to temporary warming between 2015 and 2016.”The full terms of the Italian petition follows -90 Leading Italian Scientists Sign Petition: CO2 Impact On Climate “UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED” … Catastrophic Predictions “NOT REALISTIC”By P Gosselin on4. July 201990 Leading Italian Scientists Sign Petition: CO2 Impact On Climate “UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED” … Catastrophic Predictions “NOT REALISTIC”In 1517, a 33-year-old theology professor at Wittenberg University walked over to the Castle Church in Wittenberg and nailed a paper of 95 theses to the door, hoping to spark an academic discussion about their contents. Source. The same is happening today in Italy concerning climate science as dogma.90 Italian scientists sign petition addressed to Italian leadersTo the President of the RepublicTo the President of the SenateTo the President of the Chamber of DeputiesTo the President of the CouncilPETITION ON GLOBAL ANTHROPGENIC HEATING (Anthropogenic Global Warming, human-caused global warming)The undersigned, citizens and scientists, send a warm invitation to political leaders to adopt environmental protection policies consistent with scientific knowledge.In particular, it is urgent to combat pollution where it occurs, according to the indications of the best science. In this regard, the delay with which the wealth of knowledge made available by the world of research is used to reduce the anthropogenic pollutant emissions widely present in both continental and marine environmental systems is deplorable.But we must be aware that CARBON DIOXIDE IS ITSELF NOT A POLLUTANT. On the contrary, it is indispensable for life on our planet.In recent decades, a thesis has spread that the heating of the Earth’s surface of around 0.9°C observed from 1850 onwards would be anomalous and caused exclusively by human activities, in particular by the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels in the atmosphere.This is the thesis of anthropogenic global warming [Anthropogenic Global Warming] promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations, whose consequences would be environmental changes so serious as to fear enormous damage in an imminent future, unless drastic and costly mitigation measures are immediately adopted.In this regard, many nations of the world have joined programs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and are pressured by a intense propaganda to adopt increasingly burdensome programs whose implementation involves heavy burdens on the economies of the individual member states and depend on climate control and, therefore, the “rescue” of the planet.However, the anthropogenic origin of global warming IS AN UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, deduced only from some climate models, that is complex computer programs, called General Circulation Models .On the contrary, the scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the existence of a natural climatic variability that the models are not able to reproduce.This natural variability explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.The anthropogenic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED and catastrophic predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC.The climate is the most complex system on our planet, so it needs to be addressed with methods that are adequate and consistent with its level of complexity.Climate simulation models do not reproduce the observed natural variability of the climate and, in particular, do not reconstruct the warm periods of the last 10,000 years. These were repeated about every thousand years and include the well-known Medieval Warm Period , the Hot Roman Period, and generally warm periods during the Optimal Holocene period.These PERIODS OF THE PAST HAVE ALSO BEEN WARMER THAN THE PRESENT PERIOD, despite the CO2 concentration being lower than the current, while they are related to the millennial cycles of solar activity. These effects are not reproduced by the models.It should be remembered that the heating observed since 1900 has actually started in the 1700s, i.e. at the minimum of the Little Ice Age , the coldest period of the last 10,000 years (corresponding to the millennial minimum of solar activity that astrophysicists call Maunder Minimal Solar ). Since then, solar activity, following its millennial cycle, has increased by heating the earth’s surface.Furthermore, the models fail to reproduce the known climatic oscillations of about 60 years.These were responsible, for example, for a warming period (1850-1880) followed by a cooling period (1880-1910), a heating (1910-40), a cooling (1940-70) and a a new warming period (1970-2000) similar to that observed 60 years earlier.The following years (2000-2019) saw the increase not predicted by the models of about 0.2 ° C [two one-hundredths of a degree]per decade, but a substantial climatic stability that was sporadically interrupted by the rapid natural oscillations of the equatorial Pacific ocean, known as the El Nino Southern Oscillations , like the one that led to temporary warming between 2015 and 2016.The media also claim that extreme events, such as hurricanes and cyclones, have increased alarmingly. Conversely, these events, like many climate systems, have been modulated since the aforementioned 60-year cycle.For example, if we consider the official data from 1880 on tropical Atlantic cyclones that hit North America, they appear to have a strong 60-year oscillation, correlated with the Atlantic Ocean’s thermal oscillation called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation .The peaks observed per decade are compatible with each other in the years 1880-90, 1940-50 and 1995-2005. From 2005 to 2015 the number of cyclones decreased precisely following the aforementioned cycle. Thus, in the period 1880-2015, between number of cyclones (which oscillates) and CO2 (which increases monotonically) there is no correlation.The climate system is not yet sufficiently understood. Although it is true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, according to the IPCC itself the climate sensitivity to its increase in the atmosphere is still extremely uncertain.It is estimated that a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2, from around 300 ppm pre-industrial to 600 ppm, can raise the average temperature of the planet from a minimum of 1° C to a maximum of 5° C.This uncertainty is enormous.In any case, many recent studies based on experimental data estimate that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is CONSIDERABLY LOWER than that estimated by the IPCC models.Then, it is scientifically unrealistic to attribute to humans the responsibility for warming observed from the past century to today. The advanced alarmist forecasts, therefore, are not credible, since they are based on models whose results contradict the experimental data.All the evidence suggests that these MODELS OVERESTIMATE the anthropogenic contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability, especially that induced by the sun, the moon, and ocean oscillations.Finally, the media release the message according to which, with regard to the human cause of current climate change, there would be an almost unanimous consensus among scientists that the scientific debate would be closed.However, first of all we must be aware that the scientific method dictates that the facts, and not the number of adherents, make a conjecture a consolidated scientific theory .In any case, the same alleged consensus DOES NOT EXIST. In fact, there is a remarkable variability of opinions among specialists – climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, geophysicists, astrophysicists – many of whom recognize an important natural contribution to global warming observed from the pre-industrial period and even from the post-war period to today.There have also been petitions signed by thousands of scientists who have expressed dissent with the conjecture of anthropogenic global warming.These include the one promoted in 2007 by the physicist F. Seitz, former president of the American National Academy of Sciences, and the one promoted by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), whose 2009 report concludes that “Nature, not the activity of Man governs the climate”.In conclusion, given the CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE THAT FOSSIL FUELS have for the energy supply of humanity, we suggest that they should not adhere to policies of uncritically reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere with THE ILLUSORY PRETENSE OF CONTROLLING THE CLIMATE.http://www.opinione.it/…/redazione_riscaldamento-globale-…/…PROMOTING COMMITTEE:1. Uberto Crescenti, Emeritus Professor of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, formerly Rector and President of the Italian Geological Society.2. Giuliano Panza, Professor of Seismology, University of Trieste, Academician of the Lincei and of the National Academy of Sciences, called of the XL, 2018 International Award of the American Geophysical Union.3. Alberto Prestininzi, Professor of Applied Geology, La Sapienza University, Rome, formerly Scientific Editor in Chief of the magazine International IJEGE and Director of the Geological Risk Forecasting and Control Research Center.4. Franco Prodi, Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Ferrara.5. Franco Battaglia, Professor of Physical Chemistry, University of Modena; Galileo Movement 2001.6. Mario Giaccio, Professor of Technology and Economics of Energy Sources, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, former Dean of the Faculty of Economics.7. Enrico Miccadei, Professor of Physical Geography and Geomorphology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.8. Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Atmospheric Physics and Oceanography, Federico II UniversityGLOBAL WARMING FAIL : Record Snow When You Were Assured By Climate ‘Scientists’ That There Would Be NonePosted: June 1, 2019 | Author: Jamie Spry | Filed under: Alarmism Debunked, Alarmist Predictions, Climate ChangeNewfoundland Snowpocalypse Day Five: Trading Smokes for PepsiOur four key resources now are pop, cigarettes, beer, and chips. Control the corner stores, control the Island.By Drew BrownJan 21 2020, 10:45amA SOLDIER FROM THE 4TH ARTILLERY REGIMENT BASED AT CFB GAGETOWN CLEARS SNOW AT A RESIDENCE IN ST. JOHN’S ON MONDAY, JANUARY 20, 2020. THE CANADIAN PRESS/ANDREW VAUGHANGentle reader, please forgive these shaky hands; the shovelling has broken my arms. It has been five days since St. John’s first declared a state of emergency after a monster blizzard gusting up to 170 km/h dumped more than six feet of snow on the city in a day. Civilization has ground to a halt under snow drifts 12 feet deep. Snowmobiles blast through uncleared city streets and Holloway Street has been turned into the island’s sickest ski jump. We shiver under the spectre of martial law as Canadian troops patrol the roads with fearsome plastic scoops in search of seniors who need aid. Snowbanks rise like towering mountains from the city sidewalks.http://HTTPS://WWW.VICE.COM/EN_CA/ARTICLE/DYG7VV/NEWFOUNDLAND-SNOWPOCALYPSE-DAY-FIVE-TRADING-SMOKES-FOR-PEPSIEN BY PIERRE GOSSELIN ON NOV 14, 2019. POSTED IN LATEST NEWSN. Hemisphere In Hypothermic Shock! Record Cold, ‘Historic Snowstorms’Winter hasn’t even officially arrived, but already large areas of the northern hemisphere are seeing “historic snowfalls,” frigid temperatures, and even avalanche alarms.The Northern Hemisphere has certainly caught a major cold, one certainly not caused by the human CO2 virus.Instead of fever, parts of the northern hemisphere are in hypothermia!Alarmists, media desperateThough global warming scientists will never admit it, they are really surprised and stunned.All that is left for them is to make up some cockamamie warming-causes-cold explanations and hope there are enough severely stupid among the media and masses to believe it.“United States — Rewrite the Record Books”Beginning in North America, “sub-zero temperatures are now blasting” millions of Americans following “the three historic snowstorms which buried parts of the U.S. last month,” reports weather site Electroverse - Documenting Earth Changes during the next GSM and Pole Shift here.Electroverse writes that “lows throughout the week will be more like January temperatures” with readings below zero for many U.S. states and “temps down into the teens are even forecast as far south as Texas.”Yesterday, 97 records were toppled.“It’s a big deal,” Electroverse writes in its headline. They also add:“No, record cold & snow IS NOT made ‘more likely in a warming world.’ In fact, the IPCC’s line—until not that long ago—was that ‘milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.'”Solar activity suspectedIt’s not the sort of thing we are supposed to be expecting from a “warming planet”. Some climate experts blame natural factors, like solar activity, for the cold, and that these warnings have long been known since the sun has entered a new period of calm.Freeze watches and warnings also extend as far south as Florida. And it’s only early November. And don’t expect to see many FFF activists show up at rallies protesting hot weather any time soon.Polar Bear Science site here also reports that the Hudson Bay in Canada has started freezing up earlier than normal three years in a row!Europe starting to get clobbered by snow, 2m in the AlpsMeanwhile cold has also spread across Europe, though not quite as brutal as what we’ve been seeing across North America.In central Europe, the Austrian online Heute here reports that “huge amounts of snow” are on the way for the Alps.German site http://Wetteronline.de reports here of “new, severe snowfalls in the Alps” with “up to two meters of fresh snow are possible in places up to the weekend” in Switzerland, Austria, and Northern Italy. “This is good news for winter sports enthusiasts – but the danger of avalanches is increasing.”Biggest November snowstorm in 40 yearsEven global warming child activist Greta Thunberg’s Sweden is getting hard hit by extreme cold and snow. Electroverse reports the Nordic country is suffering “its biggest November snowstorm in 40 years.”On November 10th, Mika tweeted that temps in northern Sweden fell 10 -34.5°C.Mika Rantanen@mikarantaneToday is the coldest morning so far during the ongoing winter season:-34.5°C in Sweden, -31.1°C in Norway and -30.6°C in Finland (not shown on the map).21411:31 PM - Nov 9, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy96 people are talking about thisMost snow in 60 yearsThe German Ruhrkultur site reports how also Finland just saw “the coldest autumn temperature and the highest snow depth in at least 60 years” and that “the temperature in Enontekiö, a municipality in Finnish Lapland, dropped to 28.2°C on Tuesday 5 November.”Deepening cold across Siberia as well“On November 11 in Yakutia, the daily temperature never rose above −30°C (-22F),” reports the SOTT site here. “Some parts of Siberia were even colder: In Evenkia and the northern regions of the Krasnoyarsk Territory, the temperature dropped to −41 … −44°C.”SOTT comments (sarcastically): “I wonder how much ice will melt at −44°C (-47F).With all the early winter weather, it’s ridiculous to claim the globe is burning up. So it’s no wonder the alarmists have taken their climate ambulance to the far side of the globe, NSW Australia, and kept their narrow focus on brush fires.Read more at No Tricks ZoneN. Hemisphere In Hypothermic Shock! Record Cold, 'Historic Snowstorms'Photo Kazakhstan massive snow storm, JANUARY 2020I submit far more distinguished scientists with cogent analysis deny the CO2 greenhouse effect than support it and also admonishing governments to stop the madness of reducing cheap fossil fuel energy to effect the climate.Alarmist scientists put snowfall weather in play as evidence of global warming therefore when they are wrong this means there is something wrong with their warming hypothesis.“WHAT THE ‘VAST BODY ‘ OF SCIENTIFIC ‘EXPERTS’ ASSURED US ABOUT SNOWU.N. IPCC :IN 2001, the UN IPCC predicted diminished snowfalls as human CO2 increased, claiming that “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” due to the activities of mankindpersonkind…IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeTHEY also forecast “warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change…”warmer-winters-ipcc*CSIRO :A 2003 CSIRO report, part-funded by the ski industry, found that resorts could lose up to 40% of their snow by 2020 …CSIRO Research Publications Repository – Climate change impacts on snow in VictoriaBy 2020, the average annual duration of snow-cover decreases by between five and 48 days; maximum snow depths are reduced and tend to occur earlier in the year; and the total area covered in snow shrinks by 10-40%CSIRO Research Publications Repository – Climate change impacts on snow in Victoria*SNOWFALL Will Signal The Death Of The Global Warming MovementSNOWFALL will become “A very rare and exciting event…Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”Dr David Viner – Senior scientist, climatic research unit (CRU)“Winters with strong frosts and lots of snowlike we had 20 years ago will no longer exist at our latitudes.”– Professor Mojib Latif (2000)“Good bye winter. Never again snow?” – Spiegel (2000)“Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” – IPCC (2001)“End of Snow?” – NYTimes (2014)***WE all associate snowstorms with cold weather. But, the effects of snow on our climate and weather last long after the storm has passed. Due to snows reflective properties, its presence or absence influences patterns of heating and cooling over Earth’s surface more than any other single land surface feature.CLIMATE models from the 1970s have consistently predicted that CO2-induced global warming climate change should be causing a significant decline in total snow cover. However, Global snow cover has actually increased since at least the start of the record (Connolly et al, 2019), leading to some scepticism within the scientific community about the validity of the climate models.”For example, Trudeau would be advised to listen to this petition by 90 leading Italian scientists explaining why there is no ‘climate crisis’ for government action.Rex Murphy: The PM has changed his look. But it's a policy change that's neededThe No. 1 priority now is not global warming. It is national cohesion. To repair the rift within Confederation, the Liberals must nullify what has been the central component of their public policy to dateREX MURPHYJanuary 28, 2020The weight of external events, some pathetically trivial, some potentially or already quite grave — Harry and Meghan, the coronavirus, the impeachment tap dance, the Iranian crisis — has pushed many of our own Canadian concerns to the back page for a while.The October election gave us a divided result and especially demonstrated that there is a huge fracture between the sentiments and politics of West and East. Alberta and Saskatchewan almost set up a blockade against the Liberals. The rest of the country — I’m being very general here — gave Justin Trudeau’s shaken leadership a tepid second chance. He’s still there as PM, but not with the élan that greeted his first term by any means. I am determined not to offer observations of any kind on the new beard, but I will note that there has been a change in his presence and manner since the election.There is less energy in his public persona, and there was a notable “stay away” period after the vote. (I’m not picking on the vacations, just noting that after so key an election, and with all its attendant issues, he seemed to almost completely remove himself for an extended period.)There was a notable “stay away” period after the voteDid the trimming to a minority shake the prime minister’s confidence? Did it impose a serious introspection on the ideas and approach of his first term? The bubbly, cheery, spotlight-seeking and superficial “sunny days” of Term 1 are certainly not the mode, so far, of Term 2. We are seeing a much more subdued Mr. Trudeau, though to leap to “chastened” would be a stretch.Does this signal a revision, a rethinking, of how best to achieve genuine engagement with the country? Does it mean an abandonment of the glib route of the PM-centric, photo-flashing, image-before-all politics that so enveloped his first term? Selfies are so 2015.Selfies are so 2015Or did this more demure, dare one say “reserved” Justin Trudeau, spring from the natural despondency of receiving a much reduced vote, and awakening to the prospect of leading in a minority, which imposes restraints that up to now he has not experienced? His whole career in politics up to this point had been a glittering glide. The family name, the celebrity “it” factor which he has — or had — in spades, arriving in leadership at a time when the Conservative leader, Stephen Harper, had already had a long run; ordinary politicians work a lifetime for what Justin Trudeau harvested, with ease, in a few years and in his own time of choosing.Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland prepare to speak to Liberal caucus members on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Jan. 23, 2020. Adrian Wyld/The Canadian PressAside from public demeanour there are objective signs that this is a more serious period for the prime minister. He has placed Chrystia Freeland as deputy PM, but looking at the menu of responsibilities she has been charged with — and her own increasing visibility on matters of widest concern — she appears to be more a co-PM than a deputy. Though it is still very early days, other ministers are taking the spotlight with more frequency as well. All of which may be evidence that Liberals (more quietly than the Conservatives, obviously) have taken the results to heart, perhaps have recommended some changes to the leadership and the primacy of the PMO, both stylistically and structurally.However the central question for the Liberals revolves around neither style nor even structural change. It’s policy. Particularly policy that has driven a political wedge through the Confederation and left some provinces deeply estranged and driven to rethink or attempt to rebalance the political forces of the country. The divisions that are now apparent all flow from the Trudeau government’s obsession with global warming, holding it as its commanding priority, fussing about being world leaders in the “fight against climate change.” All of this is delusion and manifestly so. Whatever your view of this problem is, it will not be solved, stopped or significantly influenced by what Canada does. India, China, America, the oil states, that is where the problem — if problem it is — lies.Alberta separatists rally outside the Alberta Legislature in Edmonton on Jan. 11, 2020. Ed Kaiser/Postmedia NewsBut the pursuit of this quixotic endeavour has meant fascination with global warming has brought to the provinces of Canada the dubious boon of carbon taxes and an extremely ambiguous, if not overtly hostile attitude, towards the country’s key industry.It is attended by a refusal to take the real measure of the damage done to all resource industries — agriculture, forestry, mining as well as oil — by the championing of international priorities at the expense of jobs, investment and “middle-class prosperity” here at home, and particularly in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The real shift the Liberals have to make is to abandon their political infatuation with global warming, and their untenable assertion that a Canadian government holds any real sway over it.As Lincoln put it, a house divided against itself cannot standThe No. 1 priority for Canada now is not global warming. It is national cohesion. To repair the rift within Confederation, the Liberals have to remove, nullify what has been the central component of their public policy to date. They have to change the songbook, lay down the hymnals to climate change.As Lincoln put it, a house divided against itself cannot stand. As an even more revered authority has noted, no man can serve two masters. And in the Canadian context, a national government cannot serve both Paris and Calgary. On one point are the environmentalists and myself in full concord. You cannot advance the energy industry in any way, and simultaneously maintain you are foremost a champion of climate change. The romance with an issue beyond Canada’s capacity to have any realistic impact on has had the direct cost of driving large parts of Canada’s West into ruminations of separation.Rex Murphy: The PM has changed his look. But it’s a policy change that’s neededWhile Trudeau is probably more popular than Trump not that it matters but what is so sad as bad a Trump is considered by Canadians under his leadership the US has done far more to reduce greenhouse gases. YES.POLITICSKenney wants swift approval from Trudeau for Teck Frontier oilsands mineBY BILL GRAVELAND THE CANADIAN PRESSPosted January 27, 2020 3:00 pmUpdated January 28, 2020 4:54 pmWATCH: In the next few weeks, it's expected that the fate of a giant oilsands mine project in north eastern Alberta will be decided. The Teck Frontier project would be twice as large as the city of Vancouver. As provincial affairs reporter Tom Vernon explains, Premier Jason Kenney is pushing Ottawa for the green light.Alberta’s premier says Prime Minister Justin Trudeau needs to move swiftly to approve the Teck Frontier oilsands mine north of Fort McMurray.Jason Kenney says there is no reason to delay the go-ahead for the $20.6-billion project near Wood Buffalo National Park in northeastern Alberta.A federal-provincial review last summer determined Frontier would be in the public interest, even though it would be likely to harm the environment and the land, resources and culture of Indigenous people.“Their current deadline is the end of February for a decision … and I’ve been very clear to the prime minister … if they say no to this project, then they are signalling his earlier statement that he wants to phase out the oilsands,” Kenney said Monday.READ MORE: Teck Frontier project to challenge Trudeau’s climate policies, relationship to Alberta: expertTrudeau commented at a town-hall meeting in January 2017 that his government was attempting to balance economic and environmental concerns.STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT“We can’t shut down the oilsands tomorrow. We need to phase them out. We need to manage the transition off of our dependence on fossil fuels, but it’s going to take time, and, in the meantime, we have to manage that transition,” Trudeau said at the time.The Frontier mine north of Fort McMurray, Alta., would produce 260,000 barrels of oil a day and about four million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions every year, for more than 40 years.The federal government must make a decision on the project by the end of February under the Environmental Assessment Act.Kenney said it’s time that the federal Liberals start listening to the majority of First Nations leaders who support projects such as Teck, the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and the Coastal GasLink pipeline in northeastern British Columbia.“I implore the federal government. If reconciliation means something, surely it means saying ‘yes’ to economic development for First Nations people.”TWEET THISKenney was speaking at an announcement of the new board of directors for the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corp. The Crown corporation plans to allocate up to $1 billion in support, such as loan guarantees, to qualified First Nations seeking an equity position in major resource projects.READ MORE: Demonstrators rally in support of — and against — Teck’s Frontier mine projectThe communities need to come up with $20 million for investment, but can receive support of up to $250 million.STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENTKenney said the corporation could provide financial support to a group seeking to buy a stake in the $7.4-billion Trans Mountain project.“We continue to discuss this with the federal government,” he said. “The prime minister has expressed an interest in selling a stake to First Nations. If that future potential First Nations consortium comes forward to the (Alberta corporation) with an application, I’m sure it will be given serious consideration.”At least three different groups in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan are seeking full or partial ownership of the pipeline, which carries crude oil from Alberta to the west coast.The federal government is studying the best options for Indigenous communities to reap economic benefits from the project, but Ottawa isn’t planning to sell the pipeline while legal and political risks remain.