Connect with us

Bruce Dowbiggin

The Right To Criticize Climate Change Has Cost Mark Steyn Almost Everything

Published

9 minute read

“Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.” author Michael Crichton, 2003

It’s a fair guess that when historians look back at the current era it will not be referred to as The Enlightenment. The purpose of our contemporary scientific inquiry, as those deceived by the Covid hustle will know, is not shedding light but shrouding and blinding honest inquiry.

If The Enlightenment was a ray of sunshine to expose truth, then the Suppression is a blow torch to destroy discussion.

Nothing better illustrates this destruction of creative scientific debate than the current Mann v Steyn, Simberg lawsuit. Climate-science salesman Michael Mann sued Rand Simberg and Canadian Mark Steyn in 2012 for defamation after the two men publicly disparaged Mann’s “hockey stick” graph that purported to prove that the late twentieth-century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years.

Two Canadians, my friend Michael McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, then snapped the hockey stick narrative, leaving Mann vexed and his Green buddies vengeful. Steyn gleefully took up their findings. (Those familiar with Steyn will know that his facility with words is withering upon his subjects.) Mann decided to sue Steyn and Simberg in the Democratic swamp of the District of Columbia, arguing they’d ruined his reputation and devastated him financially.

Howler monkeys in Legacy Media (hello Bill Nye) sensed a kill and a chance to remove an annoying “denialst” But, like his successful 2012 defence of a free-speech case in Canada  while Steyn wrote at Macleans, Mann v Steyn, Simberg is not about science or policy. It’s about the U.S. First Amendment guaranteeing free speech, something the Left used to cherish (see: The People vs Larry Flynt.)

For the Al Gore glee club, dissent is heresy. So, for various reasons, none of them good, the case stalled in the D.C. court system for 12 years, costing Steyn his health (he’s in a wheelchair after suffering three heart attacks) and millions in legal fees. The case has finally come to court and is now with the jury. Because D.C. juries— and D.C. media— are highly partisan to climate-change Democrats predicting an outcome is foolhardy.

But after being raked in testimony for his case Mann— who has not paid a cent in legal costs— will likely not be advertising this as his shining moment. “Ill-advised and embarrassing” “thin-skinned and quick to attack.” Seeks “conflict, seeking to pick fights” and “Mann did in fact breach the ethical standards” are snippets of the testimony he endured. So far, his powerful groupies ranging the Clintons to the Biden are staying loyal.

Steyn, too, has his wounds from his principled fight. Most would have saved their sanity. He has said many times that the process of defending himself against the insanity of WOKEdom is the punishment itself. Seeing him physically struggle in court to deliver his case is ample proof of the price he’s paid for mocking the party line on climate.

(Note: We are unabashed fans of Steyn’s work since he began warning of a coming Dark Age brought on by unlimited immigration and Leftist overreach. This website <NotThePublicBroadcaster.com> is in no small measure a homage to his courage and vision.)

But here we are. No matter the outcome, the coordinated forces of censorship and intimidation will have a partial victory by showing what even a correct criticism of them brings. As they are doing with their legal and political mobbing of Donald Trump they are warning any future critics that they, not science, will re-write the past and create the future.

The implications the Left has invited with its acceptance of climate change, DEI, ESG and the many other acid acronyms are widespread. As just one example, we have been preparing a book on an academic institution whose focus is on the preservation of the culture, art and significance of the Middle Ages.

We have asked a number of the interview subjects for their predictions on why the events of a thousand years ago (or earlier) are significant. What do they tell us about our present state of anti-humanist culture? Is their hope for a new enlightenment in a WOKE world?

The urge to re-write the past to suit today’s political whims, said one subject, is fatal to academic and cultural appreciation of the time of Chaucer,  Dante and Bede. Her field of study, she said, is white Christian men in Europe a thousand years or so ago. She cannot change that description. Nor will she allow the re-writing of this period of history by ahistorical radicals seeking to bolster the present by falsifying the past. Is that the end of her funding?

That is what Mann sought in engineering the climate record of proxies in a handful of pine cone and ice core samples in eastern Russia. Like most climate diehards, he claimed to see lower temperatures in the past, thereby making today’s readings seem hotter. This allowed gormless climate wind therapists like Barack Obama to claim that 97 percent of scientists agree with Mann’s “consensus” on climate change— a claim repeated endlessly by the climate cabal. This support empowered Mann to sue anyone who disputed his conclusions.

The late author Michel Crichton saw this Ship of Fools coming in 2003 when he warned, “I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled..”

Sadly, Crichton died in 2008, and Mann and hysterics like Greta Thunberg went unchecked into the bloodstream of Western society. The bland acceptance of “the effects of climate change” commercials now being peddled by Justin Trudeau’s governments is testament to the power of this lie. (Asking a climate scientist about the impacts of global warming is like asking a bureaucrat about the benefit of larger government.)

Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg sought to mock that pretence. They may even win their legal case. But the herculean struggle just to remind the public of some simple truths on science tells you that we are in dangerous times populated by scoundrels and opportunists who will not be stopped until they dictate every aspect of society.

Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster  A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, he’s a regular contributor to Sirius XM Canada Talks Ch. 167. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his new book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by bookauthority.org . His 2004 book Money Players was voted sixth best on the same list, and is available via brucedowbigginbooks.ca.

BRUCE DOWBIGGIN Award-winning Author and Broadcaster Bruce Dowbiggin's career is unmatched in Canada for its diversity and breadth of experience . He is currently the editor and publisher of Not The Public Broadcaster website and is also a contributor to SiriusXM Canada Talks. His new book Cap In Hand was released in the fall of 2018. Bruce's career has included successful stints in television, radio and print. A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada's top television sports broadcaster for his work with CBC-TV, Mr. Dowbiggin is also the best-selling author of "Money Players" (finalist for the 2004 National Business Book Award) and two new books-- Ice Storm: The Rise and Fall of the Greatest Vancouver Canucks Team Ever for Greystone Press and Grant Fuhr: Portrait of a Champion for Random House. His ground-breaking investigations into the life and times of Alan Eagleson led to his selection as the winner of the Gemini for Canada's top sportscaster in 1993 and again in 1996. This work earned him the reputation as one of Canada's top investigative journalists in any field. He was a featured columnist for the Calgary Herald (1998-2009) and the Globe & Mail (2009-2013) where his incisive style and wit on sports media and business won him many readers.

Follow Author

Bruce Dowbiggin

CHL Vs NCAA: Finally Some Sanity For Hockey Families

Published on

In forty-years-plus of covering sports you develop hobby horses. Issues that re-appear continuously over time. In our case, one of those issues has been pro hockey’s development model and the NCAA’s draconian rules for its participants. Which was better, and why couldn’t the sides reach a more reasonable model?

In the case of hockey the NCAA’s ban on any player who played a single game in the Canadian Hockey League created a harsh dilemma for hockey prodigies in Canada and the U.S. Throw your lot in with the CHL, hoping to be drafted by the NHL, or play in a secondary league like the USHL till you were eligible for the NCAA.  Prospects in the CHL’s three leagues — the OHL, QMJHL and WHL —were classified as professional by the NCAA because they get $600 a month for living expenses, losing Division I eligibility after 48 hours of training camp. The stipend isn’t considered income for personal tax purposes.”

Over the decades we’ve spoken with many parents and players trying to parse this equation. It was a heartbreaking scene when they gambled on a CHL career that gave them no life skills or education. Or the promised NCAA golden goose never appeared after playing in a lower league for prime development years.

There were tradeoffs. NCAA teams played fewer games, CHL teams played a pro-like schedule. The NCAA awarded scholarships (which could be withdrawn) while the CHL created scholarships for after a career in the league (rules that players getting NHL contracts lost those scholarships has been withdrawn). There were more contrasts.

As we wrote here in 2021, it might have stayed this way but for a tsunami created by the antitrust issue of Name Image Likeness for NCAA players who were not paid for the use of their NIL. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the issue in 2015 it warned the NCAA that its shamateurism scheme had to change. That created revolution in the NCAA. Athletes now receive healthy compensation for their image in video and digital products. They can also take million-dollar compensation from sponsors and boosters.

Portals allow them to skip from team to team to find millions in compensation. One of the many changes in the new NCAA was its prohibition against CHL players. To forestall future lawsuits costing millions, it recently made hockey players eligible for the same revenues as football and basketball players. Now the NCAA has voted to open up college hockey eligibility to CHL players effective Aug. 1, 2025, paving the way for major junior players to participate in the 2025-26 men’s college hockey season.

Which, we wrote in 2022, would leave hockey’s development model vulnerable. “As one insider told us, “The CHL model should be disrupted. Archaic and abusive.” NIL won’t kill the CHL but it could strip away a significant portion of its older stars who choose guaranteed money over long bus rides and billeting with other players. It’s early days, of course, but be prepared for an NHL No. 1 draft pick being a millionaire before his name is even called in the draft.” 

As we wrote in May of 2022 “A Connor McDavid could sign an NIL styled contract at 16 years old, play in the NCAA and— rich already— still be drafted No. 1 overall. Yes, college hockey has a lower profile and fewer opportunities for endorsements. Some will want the CHL’s experience. But a McDavid-type player would be a prize catch for an equipment company or a video game manufacturer. Or even as an influencer. All things currently not allowed in the CHL.” 

Effectively the CHL will get all or most of the top prospects at ages 16-19. After that age prospects drafted or undrafted can migrate to the NCAA model. Whether they can sign NHL contracts upon drafting and still play in the NCAA is unclear at this moment. (“On the positive side, we will get all the top young players coming to the CHL because we’re the best development option at that age,” one WHL general manager told The Athleltic’s Scott Wheeler.

One OHL GM told the Athletic “As the trend increases with American players looking for guarantees to sign, does a CHL player turn down an opportunity to sign at the end of their 19-year-old year with the hopes that a year at 20 in NCAA as a free agent gives them a better route to the NHL?”

The permutations are endless at the moment. But, at least, players and their families have a choice between hockey and education that was forbidden in the past. Plus, they can make money via NIL to allow them to stay for an extra year of development or education. The CHL will take a hit, but most young Canadian players will still see it as the logical launching pad to the NHL.

Now, for once, families can come first on the cold, nasty climb to the top hockey’s greasy pole.

Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster  A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, he’s a regular contributor to Sirius XM Canada Talks Ch. 167. His new book Deal With It: The Trades That Stunned The NHL And Changed hockey is now available on Amazon. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his previous book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by bookauthority.org . His 2004 book Money Players was voted sixth best on the same list, and is available via brucedowbigginbooks.ca.

Continue Reading

Bruce Dowbiggin

The Pathetic, Predictable Demise of Echo Journalism

Published on

It can be safely said that the 2024 U.S. presidential election couldn’t have gone much worse for legacy media in that country. Their biases, conceits and outright falsehoods throughout the arduous years-long slog toward Nov. 5 were exposed that night. Resulting in the simultaneous disaster (for them) of Donald Trump winning a thunderous re-election and their predictive polling being shown to be Democratic propaganda.

Only a handful of non-establishment pollsters (Rasmussen, AtlasIntel) got Trump’s electoral college and overall vote correct. Example: One poll by Ann Selzer in Iowa—a highly-rated pollster with a supposedly strong record—showed a huge swing towards Harris in the final week of the election race, putting her three points up over Trump. He ended up winning Iowa by 13.2 points (Selzer now says she’s retiring.)

Throughout, these experts seemed incapable of finding half the voter pool. By putting their thumb on the scale during debates, the representatives of the so-called Tiffany networks and newspapers signalled abdication of their professional code. Their reliance on scandal-sheet stories was particularly glaring.

Just a few lowlights: “the brouhaha over a shock comedian at a Trump rally calling Puerto Rico “a floating island of garbage”. Unhinged outgoing POTUS Biden then called GOP voters “garbage”. So Trump made an appearance as a garbage man, to the snarky disapproval of CBS News chief anchor Nora O’Donnell.

Then there was Whoopi Goldberg on The View predicting Trump will “break up interracial marriages and redistribute the white spouses: “He’s going to deport and you, put the white guy with someone else… The man is out there!” Media ran with this one, too.

Worse, disinformation and lying reached such a proportion that Team Trump turned its campaign away from the networks and legacy papers down the stretch, creating a new information pathway of podcasts and social media sites (such as Joe Rogan, Theo Von and Adin Ross) that promise to be the preferred route for future candidates looking for non-traditional voters. A few prominent media owners sought to save themselves by refusing to endorse a presidential candidate, but the resulting tantrum by their Kamala-loving staff negated the effort.

In the past, poor performances by the Media Party might be dismissed or ignored. But the cataclysmic ratings drops for CNN and MSNBC paired with collapse in sales for blue-blood rags such as the New York Times, Washington Post and L.A. Times spoke to the public’s disgust with people they’ve always trusted to play it straight.

(Now Comcast has announced it’s spinning off MSNBC and its news bundle to save their profitable businesses. Staff members in these places are now panicking. As such the new administration promises to be indifferent to the former media powers-that-be as Trump mounts radical plans to recast the U.S. government. )

As noted here the disgraceful exercise in journalism was cheered on by their compatriots here in Canada. “In the hermetically sealed media world of Canada, natives take their cues from CNN and MSNBC talking points both of which employ Canadians in highly visible roles. (Here’s expat Ali Velshi famously describing on NBC that the 2020 George Floyd riots that burned for weeks— destroying billions in damages while resulting in multipole deaths— as “generally peaceful”.) 

The narratives of Russiagate, drinking bleach, “fine people” to Hunter Biden’s laptop— long ago debunked down south— are still approved wisdom in Canada’s chattering class. Especially if America’s conflagration election can be used to demonstrate the good sense and judgment of Canada’s managerial and media class.

The clincher for star-struck Canadians was the overwhelming Kamala love from the Hollywood crowd. Virtually every high-profile actor/ singer/ writer embraced the woman who was parachuted into the nomination in a coup— even as the same glitterati raved about anti-democratic Trump.  From Beyoncé to Bilie Eilish to Bruce Springsteen, their support was been a winner in Canada’s fangirl/ fanboy culture.”

Talk about backing a loser. Which leaves us asking what to expect from formerly respected media in the upcoming (it will come, won’t it?) defenestration of Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh, probably in spring of 2025. One Toronto Star piece might provide a clue to the bunkered approach of Canada’s globalists. “Europe is leaving Donald Trump’s America behind. Should Canada do the same? As American democracy dives into darkness, Canada is facing difficult choices.”

CPC leader Pierre Poilievre has made it abundantly clear his thoughts on the bias of media. To save billions, he is making a major overhaul— even closure of CBC (not Radio Canada)— as a campaign pledge. He’s also said he will remove the slush fund now propping up failed establishment news organizations that employ unionized workers bent of crushing the Conservatives.

His scorn is obvious after watching media’s reverential treatment of Trudeau’s fake “murdered” Rez children stunt or the silence accompanying PMJT’s sacking of his indigenous Justice minister Jodie Wilson Raybould. Lately, a deadpan Poilievre humiliated a callow CBC reporter quoting “experts” by asking her “what experts?” Her unpreparedness leaves her floundering as Poilievre calls her question another “CBC smear job”.

Perhaps the classic Poilievre humbling of a reporter occurred in 2023 in a Kelowna apple orchard when a reporter seeking to score points with his Woke colleagues saw the bushwhack rebound on him. After numerous failed attempts at belling the cat, the local reporter played his ace card.

Question: Why should Canadians trust you with their vote, given … y’know … not, not just the sort of ideological inclination in terms of taking the page out of Donald Trump’s book, but, also —

Poilievre: (incredulous) What are you talking about? What page? What page? Can you gimme a page? Gimme the page. You keep saying that … “

No page was produced and the cringeworthy interview collapsed.

Needless to say, the reporter was absolved by his water-carrying colleagues. Here was Shannon Proudfoot of the Toronto Star: “Kicking a journalist in the shins over and over then turning the exchange into a social-media flex is telling on yourself…”  Venerable CBC panelist/ Star columnist Chantal Hébert  echoed the pauvre p’tit  take. “Agreed”.

For these press box placeholders it’s all too reminiscent of the acid-drenched style of former PM Stephen Harper, a stance that turned them to Trudeau cheerleaders in 2015. Which is to say we shouldn’t have high hopes for balance when the writ is finally dropped.

Poilievre has several more ministers (Melissa Lantsman, Garrett Genuis) skilled in exposing media imbalance, so we can expect full-blown pushback from the paid-for media from the usual suspects when Trudeau finally succumbs to reality. One drawback for the Conservatives could be the absence of national podcasters such as Rogan or Von to which they can pivot.

But make no mistake, However much Canada’s press corps denies it, the public has turned away from Mr Blackface and the politics of privilege. They’d best anticipate a rough ride ahead.

Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster  A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, he’s a regular contributor to Sirius XM Canada Talks Ch. 167. His new book Deal With It: The Trades That Stunned The NHL And Changed hockey is now available on Amazon. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his previous book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by bookauthority.org . His 2004 book Money Players was voted sixth best on the same list, and is available via brucedowbigginbooks.ca.

Continue Reading

Trending

X