Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended more than
10,000 years ago. There is currently no acceleration in sea level
rise.
'Global sea levels have been naturally rising for ~20,000 years and have
decelerated over the past 8,000 years, decelerated over the 20th
century, decelerated 31% since 2002, and decelerated 44% since 2004 to
less than 7 inches per century. There is no evidence of an acceleration
of sea level rise, and therefore no evidence of any effect of mankind on
sea levels.
According to tide gauges, sea Level is rising LESS than the thickness of
one nickel (1.95 mm thick) per year or about the thickness of one penny
(1.52 mm thick) a year. According to satellite info it is rising
slightly more than two pennies a year (3.04

This is typical of your sides muddled ideas. No wonder most of us think your side has no case.
You said
Sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended more than 10,000 years ago
Then you said
sea levels have been naturally rising for ~20,000 years
So did the sea level rise during the last ice age? Can you prove that? Where did the water come from that was turned to ice.
You said
There is no evidence of an acceleration of sea level rise
Prove it.... because I here different from a source I trust a lot more then "Bob" or some other one of your denial blog website.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.
While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.
The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.
Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of<abbr title="1 to 2.5 millimeters" style="cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">0.04 to 0.1 inches</abbr> per year since 1900.
This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of <abbr title="3 millimeters" style="cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">0.12 inches </abbr>per year.
This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.
 
That's a big list of Greenpeace titles he has.
Greenpeace Founder
Founding Member of Greenpeace
Now he claims "co-founder of Greenpeace"
What does Greenpeace say about his status?
Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace

Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace's response are available here (PDF).

well there you go ... your side "making stuff up" again....
 
Dont let this get in the way of your "making up stuff" as you loke to say.



IPCC Head Rajendra Pachauri Acknowledges 17 Year Stall In Global Warming

Posted on February 25, 2013 by Terry Wilson in World News // 3 Comments

In the fall of 2012 the Met office released a report that stated global warming had staled for the last 16 years.

“The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.”

Shortly after the release, Nasa’s James Hansen acknowledged that global temperatures have not risen for more than a decade.

Now Rajendra Pachauri, head of the United Nations IPCC has Acknowledged the pause in warming.

“THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.”
Source

So in essence their stance is that global warming has stopped, but needs to continue the non warming trend for twice as along (and twice as long as the previous warming trend 1980 – 1996) to break the trend.

15




 
Dont let this get in the way of your "making up stuff" as you loke to say.



IPCC Head Rajendra Pachauri Acknowledges 17 Year Stall In Global Warming

Posted on February 25, 2013 by Terry Wilson in World News // 3 Comments

In the fall of 2012 the Met office released a report that stated global warming had staled for the last 16 years.

“The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.”

Shortly after the release, Nasa’s James Hansen acknowledged that global temperatures have not risen for more than a decade.

Now Rajendra Pachauri, head of the United Nations IPCC has Acknowledged the pause in warming.

“THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.”
Source

So in essence their stance is that global warming has stopped, but needs to continue the non warming trend for twice as along (and twice as long as the previous warming trend 1980 – 1996) to break the trend.

15
See this
http://www.skepticalscience.com/australian-pachauri-global-warming.html

Again someone is making stuff up and this time it's a media source under Rupert Murdoch's control.
 
Do you really want to read what you said here?
You cannot see the forest for the trees.
Your source said exactly what mine did.




This is typical of your sides muddled ideas. No wonder most of us think your side has no case.
You said

Then you said

So did the sea level rise during the last ice age? Can you prove that? Where did the water come from that was turned to ice.
You said

Prove it.... because I here different from a source I trust a lot more then "Bob" or some other one of your denial blog website.
 
Do you really want to read what you said here?
You cannot see the forest for the trees.
Your source said exactly what mine did.
Perhaps you need to reread my source..... I'll bold and underline the parts to help you.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.
While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.
The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.
Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of<abbr title="1 to 2.5 millimeters" style="cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">0.04 to 0.1 inches</abbr> per year since 1900.
This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of <abbr title="3 millimeters" style="cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">0.12 inches </abbr>per year.
This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.

Your source is what??? A denial blog or are you making that up?

yup 20,000 ago we had an ice age and then it melted. Where did the ice/water go? Could it have gone to the ocean? Would that be sea level rise?
 
Once again, to see if you get it.




According to tide gauges, sea Level is rising LESS than the thickness of
one nickel (1.95 mm thick) per year or about the thickness of one penny
(1.52 mm thick) a year. According to satellite info it is rising
slightly more than two pennies a year (3.04mm).


This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches per year.
This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oil-price-decline-could-lead-to-global-shocks-don-pittis-1.2852597

ANALYSIS
Oil price decline could lead to global shocks: Don Pittis
How low can oil go? Historically the industry has seen boom and bust
By Don Pittis, CBC News Posted: Nov 28, 2014 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Nov 28, 2014 8:23 AM ET

If you think falling oil prices are not going to have a big effect on industry or on the rest of us, that's not what history tell us, Don Pittis writes.
If you think falling oil prices are not going to have a big effect on industry or on the rest of us, that's not what history tell us, Don Pittis writes.

Oil price plunging
Oil price plunging 2:48


1024 shares

Facebook

Twitter

Reddit

Google

Share

Email
About The Author

Photo of Don Pittis

Don Pittis
The Business Unit

Don Pittis has been a Fuller Brush man, a forest fire fighter and an Arctic ranger before discovering journalism. He was principal business reporter for Radio Television Hong Kong before the handover to China and has produced and reported for CBC and BBC News. He is currently senior producer at CBC's business unit.

Related Stories

Paul Davis says province will weather oil-price crush
Oil price falls below $70 US as OPEC leaves output unchanged
Questions about $75 oil hang over Alberta's latest fiscal update
Loonie oil prices could fall much further: Don Pittis
Amaranth hedge fund estimates losses at $6B US
External Links

Oil price fall starts to weigh on banks
Oil price slide leaves energy bond investors facing zero returns
A graph of oil price volatility since 1970
(Note: CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external links.)
It is easy to forget that oil has always been a boom and bust business.

As we watched oil prices tumble over the last four months, from over $100 US to $90 to $80, I was repeatedly surprised by glib comments from people in the oil industry who said the decline would not have a significant effect on business.

Perhaps it's the optimism inherent in the rootin' tootin' resource sector. Maybe it's just that in the oil business, memories are short.

Because if you think falling oil prices are not going to have a big effect on industry or on the rest of us, well, that's not what history tell us. And I'm not talking about ancient history, although that may apply too. I'm talking about my own lifetime.

Oil price falls below $70 US as OPEC leaves output unchanged
Oil price falls to $74 US before OPEC meeting
I remember the first time around in university, investing my tuition in Norcen Energy and making a killing before dunning notices from Lakehead U. forced me to sell.

hi-arctic-oil-rig-greeland
An Arctic oil rig operates off Greenland. This is not the first time Canada has seen an exploration boom in the Far North.

I remember a few years later, around 1980, working with Panarctic Oils during a frenzy of drilling in the high Arctic islands. After all, the world was hungry for gas to pump down the soon-to-be-constructed Mackenzie Valley Pipeline.

A friend from the North who had gone to Calgary to work for an oil company bought the largest house he could afford. That was the advice everyone was giving. With the oil boom on, house prices could only rise.

Rude surprise

But suddenly, in the mid-'80s it seemed the world had changed in an instant. In a matter of months oil prices had started to plunge and the plunge became a rout.

Calgary house prices began to fall. Even successful oil and gas strikes were capped. Norcen Energy disappeared. So did Panarctic Oils, its huge base on Melville Island's Rae Point mothballed. Talk of a gas pipeline faded.

I have no evidence to prove that the same thing is happening now, but before you reject the idea altogether it might be wise to look at a historic graph of oil prices.

Keystone Construction Defects
TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline has been a controversial project. In the 1980s, the Mackenzie Valley pipeline was a similar flashpoint. (Tony Gutierrez/Associated Press file photo)

The bizarre thing that shocked everyone in the 1980s was how suddenly the market turned. In retrospect it feels as if people in the industry should have known. Surely if they had they would have done things differently. My friend in Calgary would have bought a more modest house.

Happening again?

This time around, just before yesterday's decision by OPEC not to cut output, everyone seemed to think that the OPEC decision had already been priced into the market. After all, oil prices had already tumbled from over $105 US four months earlier to $75 US.

Not so. Minutes after the organization's secretary general Abdalla El-Badri said, "We're going to produce 30 [million barrels a day] for the first half of the year," leaving production unchanged, oil prices started falling again.

West Texas Intermediate, the North American benchmark price, tumbled another four dollars into the $69 US range.

Of course, what everyone is wondering now is how much further it has to fall.

News stories now imply that the decline was obvious. Growing production and falling demand mean there is a glut. But the surprising thing is not how much has changed since June when oil was selling at $105 US a barrel, but how little.

It reminds me of the more recent example of natural gas in 2006 when investors in hedge fund Amaranth lost their shirts as the price of gas plummeted in a matter of months.

Natural gas price hits 7-year low
Amaranth losses at $6 billion US
With access to so much information in the form of big data, it is hard to say why we are constantly surprised by sudden extreme price changes — in that case from more than $10 per thousand cubic feet to less than $3 — and why we don't do something to mitigate the extremes.

On the other hand, it was amusing to see commentators in the notoriously free-market oil industry regretting the failure of OPEC to manipulate prices. "OPEC just declared war on everyone — including itself," said the pro free market Wall Street Journal.

As I have pointed out many times in the past, the free market can be a harsh mistress.

And it is not just oil investors who will feel the pinch if prices continue to decline. Already there have been reports of banks and bonds hurting because of the fall in oil prices.

Governments from Venezuela to Alberta are losing tax revenue and could well lose more. Lower oil prices will make it harder for green energy projects to compete. Greenhouse gases could rise as people burn fuel more freely. Calgary house prices could fall.

Now that oil prices have started falling, it is impossible to know where they will stop. Certainly in the past they have fallen far below where they are now. On the other hand, if we are using history as our guide, no matter how far they fall, one day oil prices will rise again.
 

Attachments

  • crudeoilprices_02.jpg
    crudeoilprices_02.jpg
    16.8 KB · Views: 36
According to tide gauges, sea Level is rising LESS than the thickness of
one nickel (1.95 mm thick) per year or about the thickness of one penny
(1.52 mm thick) a year. According to satellite info it is rising
slightly more than two pennies a year (3.04mm).s.
Is this the global measurement or a local measurement?
Do you have a source?
Could it be that some place are having greater sea level rise?
Could those places be at financial risk?
[X1hJYLw7OlM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1hJYLw7OlM
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oil...-us-as-opec-leaves-output-unchanged-1.2852187

Oil price falls below $70 US as OPEC leaves output unchanged
Canadian dollar plunges almost a full U.S. cent as cartel decides not to cut production
The Canadian Press Posted: Nov 27, 2014 10:47 AM ET Last Updated: Nov 27, 2014 11:01 PM ET

Related Stories

OPEC meeting could reveal fractures in oil cartel
Questions about $75 oil hang over Alberta's latest fiscal update
Sask. finances still on track despite low oil prices, finance minister says
The Toronto stock market tumbled more than 100 points as energy stocks sold off and crude prices plunged to multiyear lows — below $70 US a barrel — after the OPEC cartel declined to cut oil production.

The S&P/TSX composite index dropped 115.97 points, 0.77 per cent, to 14,922.44. Trading volumes were lower than usual with American markets closed for the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday.

The energy sector lost seven per cent while the January crude contract was down $4.64 to a 4½ year low of $69.05 US a barrel.

Falling oil prices pushed the Canadian dollar down 0.75 of a cent to 88.25 cents US.

There had been hopes that oil ministers with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries who met in Vienna would cut production in order to put a floor under prices that have fallen about 30 per cent since mid-summer, when prices were elevated by geopolitical worries. Prices have steadily fallen since then because of a strengthening U.S. dollar, lower demand prospects and, particularly, a glut of oil.

OPEC meeting could reveal fractures in cartel
Questions about $75 oil hang over Alberta's latest fiscal update
Sask. finances on track despite low oil prices, finance minister says
But OPEC decided Thursday to keep its production target at 30 million barrels a day, despite an oversupply of crude and plunging prices.

Major oil supplier Saudi Arabia had indicated before the meeting that it favoured the status quo. The Saudis are the top producers within the 12-nation organization and effectively decide the cartel's policy.

Some less well-off members had favoured a cut, to reduce supplies and push prices back up. But because of booming shale production in the U.S, that would not have made a sizable dent in supply.

Oil is headed to $60 without OPEC intervention, experts say
Newfoundland and Labrador announces freeze on spending, hiring
Crude awakening in oil prices casting Canada billions
OPEC still accounts for a third of the world's oil production, but the 32 per cent fall in prices is straining the tenuous image of unity it strives to project.

Dirk Lever, managing director of equity research with the Calgary-based investing firm AltaCorp, said the decision was not a big surprise.

"With growth in production both in Russia and in the United States, if they cut back the other countries just fill the void," he said.

FCM Oliver 20141118
Finance Minister Joe Oliver says the federal government has already considered the dramatic slide in oil prices in its fiscal forecasts. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

In Canada, he said, the impact could include difficulties getting pipelines approved when the perception is there's too much oil.

"Being awash in crude and it being at a low price it's hard or harder to get approval, so I think it will be an uphill battle," Lever said.

Governments deal with price drop

Finance Minister Joe Oliver says the federal government has already considered the dramatic slide in oil prices in its
fiscal forecasts.

"When we took into account the oil price decline which had already occurred, we made the assumption that the prices would stay at the low level for the entire period," Oliver told a media conference on Thursday.

Oliver said that's "a relatively conservative assumption and we'll continue to monitor the level of prices."

Lower oil prices are starting to bite into Canadian provinces' finances as well.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, Premier Paul Davis has announced the government is imposing a freeze on discretionary spending and imposing an extra layer of approval on all hiring.
In Saskatchewan, the spring budget was based on a price of oil that would average around $94 US per barrel, but the province says its finances are still on track thanks to higher potash revenue and Crown land sales.
In Alberta, Finance Minister Robin Campbell has said "tough decisions" will need to be made if low prices persist. Revenue from Alberta's energy sector generally accounts for about 25 per cent of the province's total revenue.​
Price war?

Tariq Zahir, analyst at Tyche Capital Advisors in New York, said the slide in U.S. crude could continue below $65 a
barrel in coming weeks, a factor that may start to challenge the economics of North American shale oil production.

"I really think we will start getting into a price war," Zahir said. "I think you would be a little crazy to try to pick
a bottom here. I expect to see a bounce but any bounce will be sold into."

He added trading volumes were reasonably strong on Thursday despite many U.S. traders being off for the Thanksgiving holiday.

Oil analysts said the OPEC decision left the oil market vulnerable to much bigger falls as abundant supply of high
quality, light crude oil floods world markets, much of it from shale oil in North America.

"Saudi Arabia and OPEC will have to live with a prolonged period of low prices for any dent in U.S.-shale or production
levels to happen," said Harry Tchilinguirian, senior strategist at BNP Paribas in London.

With files from Reuters and CBC News
© The Canadian Press, 2014
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141127082315.htm

Ancient marine algae provides clues of climate change impact on today's microscopic ocean organisms
Date:
November 27, 2014
Source:
University of Southampton
Summary:
A study of ancient marine algae has found that climate change affected their growth and skeleton structure, which has potential significance for today’s equivalent microscopic organisms that play an important role in the world’s oceans. Coccolithophores, a type of marine algae, are prolific in the ocean today and have been for millions of years. These single-celled plankton produce calcite skeletons that are preserved in seafloor sediments after death. Although coccolithophores are microscopic, their abundance makes them key contributors to marine ecosystems and the global carbon cycle.
Share This
Email to a friend
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
Print this page

Coccolithophore.
Credit: Image courtesy of University of Southampton
[Click to enlarge image]
A study of ancient marine algae, led by the University of Southampton, has found that climate change affected their growth and skeleton structure, which has potential significance for today's equivalent microscopic organisms that play an important role in the world's oceans.
Related Articles
Marine conservation
Coral
Ocean acidification
Red tide
Seaweed
Plankton
Coccolithophores, a type of marine algae, are prolific in the ocean today and have been for millions of years. These single-celled plankton produce calcite skeletons that are preserved in seafloor sediments after death. Although coccolithophores are microscopic, their abundance makes them key contributors to marine ecosystems and the global carbon cycle.
There is, therefore, much current interest in how coccolithophore calcification might be affected by climate change and ocean acidification, both of which occur as atmospheric carbon dioxide increases.
The research, published in Nature Communications, examined preserved fossil remains of coccolithophores from a period of climate warming and ocean acidification that occurred around 56 million years ago -- the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) -- and provides a much-needed long-term perspective of coccolithophore response to ocean acidification.
Dr Sarah O'Dea, from Ocean and Earth Science at the University of Southampton and lead author of the study, says: "Our results show that climate change significantly altered coccolithophore calcification rates at the PETM and has the potential to be just as significant, perhaps even more so, today. Ultimately then, it is the factors that influence where species live, their abundance, how fast they grow and their ability to adapt to environmental change that is likely to control future coccolithophore calcite production."
The study investigated two key PETM coccolithophores, Coccolithus pelagicus and Toweius pertusus, both of which are directly related to species that dominate the modern ocean.
It found that calcification rates of C. pelagicus and T. pertusus halved during the PETM, due to changes in environmental factors that influenced their growth. The response of each species was, however, different, and involved intervals of slowed growth in C. pelagicus and an overall reduction in the size of the skeletal components -- coccoliths -- in T. pertusus. Intriguingly though, there was very little evidence for any response to ocean acidification, other than perhaps a slight thinning of C. pelagicus coccoliths..
Dr Samantha Gibbs, from Ocean and Earth Science at the University of Southampton, who was Dr O'Dea's PhD supervisor and co-author of the study, says: "A key objective was to record calcification in fossil coccolithophores in a way that enabled direct comparison with measurements from living specimens. Our novel technique involved analysing coccolithophore skeletal remains and applying observations from modern specimens to estimate, for the first time, calcification rates of fossil coccolithophores."
The study, which also involved researchers from the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton and University College London, was funded by a Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) studentship to Dr O'Dea and a Royal Society Research Fellowship to Dr Gibbs, Senior Research Fellow in Ocean and Earth Science at the University of Southampton, with additional support by the UK Ocean Acidification Research Programme.
Story Source:
The above story is based on materials provided by University of Southampton. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Journal Reference:
Sarah A. O’Dea, Samantha J. Gibbs, Paul R. Bown, Jeremy R. Young, Alex J. Poulton, Cherry Newsam, Paul A. Wilson. Coccolithophore calcification response to past ocean acidification and climate change. Nature Communications, 2014; 5: 5363 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms6363
 
This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches per year.


0.12 inches is 3.05 mm. or slightly more than two pennies.


This is from "YOUR SOURCE"!

You will also note from " Your Source" the words . This rate "MAY" be increasing.

They did not say it would be "absolutely increasing".






Is this the global measurement or a local measurement?
Do you have a source?
Could it be that some place are having greater sea level rise?
Could those places be at financial risk?
[X1hJYLw7OlM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1hJYLw7OlM
 
The climate denial team and how they roll

Ezra Levant ordered to pay $80,000 in libel suit; judge cites ‘reckless disregard for the truth’



An Ontario Superior Court judge has delivered a stinging rebuke of Ezra Levant, declaring as part of an $80,000 libel judgment that the Sun Media personality displayed “reckless disregard for the truth” and “took little or no responsibility for the accuracy” of certain statements he published on his personal blog.
Finding that Levant acted with malice in his coverage of a 2008 British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Justice Wendy Matheson said “he did little or no fact-checking regarding the posts complained of, either before or after their publication. Nor did he accurately report what was taking place at the hearing. And, with one exception, when he learned that he got his facts wrong, he made no corrections.”

In finding for plaintiff Khurrum Awan, who was at the time an Osgoode Hall law student, the judge also rejected a defence, put forward by Levant’s lawyers, that their client’s reputation as an “outspoken provocateur and troublemaker” would preclude most reasonable people from taking his defamatory statements literally.

Mr. Levant has 15 days to remove the defamatory posts from his blog, ezralevant.con. At the time of their publication in 2008 and 2009, he was an independent commentator.
He says he will appeal the ruling (available here).

The case stems from complaints made by Awan and three fellow students over a 2006 Maclean’s magazine cover story, “The future belongs to Islam,” written by Mark Steyn. In 2007, the group of students, who believed the article portrayed Muslims unfairly, met with Maclean’s staff to ask the magazine to publish an article that offered a different view of their religion. They also requested Maclean’s make a donation to a charity working in race relations. Editor Ken Whyte refused, noting the magazine had already published numerous letters responding to the article.
Later, the students escalated their efforts, writing to Rogers Publishing, owner of Maclean’s, for redress. When that was rebuffed they took their complaints to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, while the Canadian Islamic Congress took up their cause with complaints to Canadian and B.C. human rights bodies.
Levant has frequently attacked human rights commissions as “kangaroo courts” that should be abolished.
In his coverage, Levant drew direct connections between Awan and the CIC’s controversial founder Mohamed Elmasry, who has said in media interviews that every Israeli adult is a legitimate "target.”

In a series of blog posts, headlined “Khurrun Awan is a serial liar,” and then, “Awan the liar, part 2,” “Awan the liar, part 3,” and so on, Levant charged that Awan lied repeatedly to the tribunal about demands he and his fellow students made to Maclean’s. Citing the request for a charitable donation, Levant charged that the group of students “tried to shake down” Maclean’s.
At trial, Mr. Levant’s lawyers argued his statements were fair comment. The judge accepted that defence for some of the blog posts, but rejected it for others.
“At trial, the defendant took little or no responsibility for the accuracy of the words complained of, routinely attempting to minimize or mischaracterize his own errors,” she wrote. “I find that the defendant’s dominant motive in these blog posts was ill will, and that his repeated failure to take even basic steps to check his facts showed a reckless disregard for the truth.”
She added: “It is also significant that the defendant is himself a lawyer. For most of the blogs at issue, he was purporting to report on a legal proceeding … [He] ought to have been aware of the serious ramifications of his words on the reputation of this law student. Yet, at trial, he repeatedly tried to minimize his mistakes and his lack of diligence.”


Awan said at trial that he believes Levant’s blog posts have made it difficult for him to find employment as a lawyer in Toronto. After articling in Toronto, he secured a job in Regina, where is currently working as a lawyer.
In a statement e-mailed to The Globe, Levant called the result “a shocking case of libel chill that should concern any Canadian who is worried about radical Islam, and the right to call out anti-Semitism in the public square.
“If this judgment stands, anyone who dares to challenge members of Muslim extremist groups on the basis of their affiliation with such groups is at risk of costly lawsuits – and all the member of the anti-Semitic group needs to do is to deny that they share the beliefs of their organizations that they work hard to promote, or claim they had no clue their anti-Semitic group was anti-Semitic.
He added: “It is a national gag order, which has the effect of silencing and punishing critics of anti-Semitism.”
Levant has set up a fundraising website to help pay his legal bills, which he estimates will be at least $30,000.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top