Bruce Pardy

After nearly two years of research and eight months of building this project alongside co-editors Professor Ian Clark and Tom Harris, we are ready to launch Canary in a Climate World: Climate Realism vs. the Net Zero Myth this Wednesday. What surprised us most throughout this journey was the extraordinary number of highly credentialed individuals quietly questioning key aspects of the prevailing climate and Net Zero narrative. Scientists. Physicists. Geologists. Engineers. Economists. Physicians. Professors. Policy experts. Investigative journalists. Contributors include Nobel Prize-winning physicist Dr. John F. Clauser, Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore, MIT atmospheric physicist Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Princeton physicist Professor William Happer, Professor Henrik Svensmark, Professor Nir Shaviv, Professor Angus Dalgleish, Sir Christopher Chope, Lord Black of Crossharbour, and many other internationally recognized experts and Climate Canaries. Several contributors from the earlier Canary Covid volumes also return in this book, writing directly about the striking parallels they now see emerging between the Covid era and the climate narrative. Launching Wednesday on Amazon across hardcover, paperback, eBook, and audiobook platforms. The Canaries are speaking and this conversation is only just beginning. #Climate #NetZero #ClimateRealism #CanaryInAClimateWorld

I love @DMillardHaskell’s new book! I disagree with much of it, but that’s kinda why I love “Christ or Collapse”. It addresses the central divide in political philosophy: who decides your life, you or the state? As western societies fray, many people who may have once believed in individual liberty are turning to the idea that the authority of the state must be wielded to enforce norms and virtues, and put things back on track. David’s book makes this case. It’s a superb piece of work. Even if it’s not quite right. 😎 I look forward to addressing his arguments more formally soon.

Among many interesting ideas is the divide between classical liberals/libertarians and traditional conservatives. @DMillardHaskell contends that flourishing civilizations cannot emerge from libertarianism—I'm guessing @PardyBruce would disagree on principle, not track record.

I'm nearly finished this book, and I wholly agree on its importance. This impressive work (586 pages, hundreds of references) is very persuasive. (On reading, I was reminded of Enlightenment Now—the empirical onslaught is relentless.)

You are missing the double standard in her tenth question. If the "Remain" side wins, it's binding. It's over. No further referendum. Independence is defeated. If the "Independence" side wins, it's not binding. You have to have another referendum and win that one too. See the double standard?

@RuffledCanary "If we get less than 50% ... we have a chance to further educate Albertans for the binding referendum a few months or a year down the road." If you get less than 50%, it's over. There's no future referendum. Independence is done for the foreseeable future.

Yes, that's true. But that can work to our advantage. Allow me flip it around. Let's say Smith was to put a binding referendum question on the ballot (and also assume that duty to consult etc. was satisfied). Now, what would happen if less than 50% voted for independence? That would be the end of the debate and the binding referendum would come to naught. At least with the non-binding referendum, if we get less than 50% (extremely likely) we know where we stand, and have a chance to further educate Albertans for the binding referendum a few months or a year down the road. I don't believe we have the numbers to get 50%+ by Oct. 19. Most people are still completely unaware of the issues. It's going to take some time to build mindshare and overcome the media propaganda. There needs to be a lot more public discussions and town halls, etc. before we can achieve 50%+.

I didn't. It's just less pertinent since the same thing can be done after a non-binding referendum. Yes, if a judge decided in the same way, then we could just follow their interpretation of "duty to consult." But that can also happen immediately after the non-binding referendum. It's much more strategic to do this with foreknowledge of what we're up against. If the non-binding referendum shows below 50% support then we have work to do. If it shows above 50% then we can push forward with the "duty to consult" and a subsequent binding referendum.

You stopped too soon. "Let’s say that a new judge in a new case under the Referendum Act says that the Government of Alberta cannot hold an independence referendum without consulting. In that case, the Government should consult. It’s not a big deal. Go ask aboriginal Albertans what they think about holding a referendum. The duty to consult is not an aboriginal veto. And in any event, polling has suggested that support for independence among the aboriginal population is strong. Don’t consult the leaders, but the people. Get on with it. It doesn’t have to take long."

"Now, if Smith announced an independence referendum under the Referendum Act, there’s no guarantee that aboriginal leaders wouldn’t challenge that in court too. But that would be a new case. It would be under a different statute. There would be a new judge." And given how King's Bench is stacked by liberal-appointed judges (83%), how likely is it that they come to a different decision? Especially considering a similar issue (albeit different statute) was already ruled on in the negative? Extremely unlikely. Having a binding referendum question too early is shooting the independence movement in the foot. Judging from recent polling, we don't have then numbers yet. Most people are still completely unaware of the issues. A grass-roots education period is essential. The non-binding question will at least gauge voter opinion to see how much work we have to do, or if we have the numbers and can push forward. This is not an awful result, but may in fact be quite serendipitous. x.com/albertaseparat…

@DavidMcLA Everyone needs to read this We must move fast x.com/PardyBruce/sta…

@RuffledCanary Didn't read the piece, I guess.

The successful litigants who halted the petition process have indicated that if Smith puts forward the referendum question as a legally-binding question which can trigger negotiations, that they will litigate to have it removed just as for the petition process. Given the precedent and previous success, what is the likelihood that a judge would allow the binding referendum question when it did not allow the petition process due to the (supposed) unconstitutional failure in their "duty to consult"?

@ThisBoyTV westernstandard.news/opinion/pardy-…

@PardyBruce What other things could get in the way?

#AlbertaIndependence #referendum Alberta will not become independent with this provincial government at the helm. Danielle Smith is hiding behind court rulings as a convenient pretext. The tenth question is a trap. ~ @PardyBruce brucepardy.substack.com/p/no-independe…

BREAKING NEWS There are many things that @PardyBruce and I agree on. This is one of them. @ABDanielleSmith LIED to Albertans when she said that the courts prevented her from simply calling a real question on independence under s.1 of the Referendum Act. brucepardy.substack.com/p/no-independe…

Was pleased to attend a showing in Toronto of @JasonLavigneAB's excellent film, The Shot, telling the tragedy of Sean Hartman's death from the Covid-19 vaccine. Stellar lineup of Covid dissidents and independent thinkers in attendance.

Another must-read from @pardybruce.

The remain side gets "a free shot" at shutting down the referendum on Oct 19, and if they lose that vote, a very long delay is inevitable. An excellent piece from @PardyBruce. open.substack.com/pub/brucepardy…

She’s hiding behind the most recent court decision. She’s claiming that it prohibits an independence referendum, and must be appealed and resolved before one can be held. That’s not correct - but it would mean 2028 at the earliest. There are other warnings too in that statement.

@PardyBruce Re option 2,she said, “A vote to commence the necessary albeit lengthy legal processes, appeals and other steps needed to separate from Canada including a binding referendum that complies with the Constitution.” WHAT does “lengthy legal processes, appeals and other steps” mean?🤔

The premier’s media session on the referendum today confirmed that Alberta will not become independent with present provincial leadership in power. m.youtube.com/watch?v=vxzs0w…

I was naive. I've had time to think, and anyone remotely interested in Independence is going to want to read this. I finally realized... there hasn't been a swing from the other side the entire time Independence has been on the line. I wondered why they sat there, defenceless... allowing us to rally support and grow in numbers. They created concrete legitimacy for us, and solidified the argument for independence. But they never fought back. That's because they don't fight like we fight. We fight with logic, morality, and pragmatism. They fight with overwhelming resources, a corrupt system, and judicial abuse. This was their swing, and I wasn't expecting it to come from Danielle Smith. I was naive. Now that they've finally swung when we thought the bell rang and the fight was over... they're doubling down in a variety of ways. 1) They hope the bogus ruling against StayFreeAlberta withstands the appeal- I'm sure this is already rigged 2) They've enabled Danielle Smith pull the rug on the people that supported her- we were stunned by this. 3) The future of the referendum in Alberta now has only obstacles and question marks. It will definitely hurt support. 4) They've coordinated. Everyone posting the picture I've attached here is in on it. They want to look legitimate, humble, Canadian... it's real branding and done on purpose. These 4 things appeared over night, and I didn't realize they were able to precipitate with such expediency. This is their right-hook. Welcome to the big leagues. But guess what... this just means we understand they finally decided to fight- don't let it mean the fight is over. For the record, for this level of coordination to appear at this speed likely means one thing: Smith communicated (or her plan was leaked) to the Federalists long before her announcement. You guys like elbows up? Alright then. Let's dance. Independence gets the next move.

Ah, yes, the SFA question could well be unclear if combined with the other questions on Oct 19. So in that respect, a delay could be a good thing, if the SFA were to get its own referendum as a stand-alone question. But the Smith question gives "Remain" two kicks at the can, even though it is not clear. If it wins on Oct 19, the thing is over.

@PardyBruce Sorry if I was confusing, I meant that the SFA question would be unclear and disallowed so Smith’s question is better alternative. Would delay SFA to be a separate question on its own which in discussion with Jason @JasonLavigneAB could be a good thing.

@PardyBruce I believe that a successful question on independence would have a high chance of being disallowed for violating sec. 4(b) of the Clarity Act for not being “clear”. Thus, can Smith’s new question actually be looked upon as a positive for the independence movement?