Seeker

OTTAWA — The Liberal government is intent on buying Super Hornet fighter jets, according to multiple sources. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet reportedly discussed the issue last week, and while no formal decision was taken, one top-level official said: “They have made up their minds and are working on the right narrative to support it.” Rather than a full replacement of the air force’s aging CF-18 fighter fleet, it’s believed the purchase will be labelled an interim measure to fill what Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has warned is a pending “gap” in Canada’s military capabilities. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/liberals-planning-to-buy-super-hornet-fighter-jets-before-making-final-decision-on-f-35s-sources-say

No cheap alternative says John Ivison: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/13/john-ivison-there-are-no-cheap-alternatives-to-the-f-35s-for-canada/ "In September, the Australian Auditor-General put the acquisition cost of 24 Super Hornets at A$3.54-billion (C$3.67-billion) and the sustainment costs for 10 years at A$1.38-billion (C$1.43-billion.). If you double the sustainment costs for comparison purposes and divide by 24 planes, the cost is $272-million each for purchase and maintenance over a 20-year period. We know what the government says are the equivalent costs for the F-35 because they have just been released. The government says it will spend $8.9-billion on acquisition and $7.3-billion on sustainment over 20 years on 65 aircraft – or $249-million each."

Interesting comment posted to this article: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/07/john-ivison-f-35s-officially-costed-at-45802000000-in-new-report/ on national post.com (italics and bold mine): "The report validates much of the costing done by National Defence. The acquisition costs are identical at $8.9-billion. DND calculates sustainment costs will be $7.3-billion, while KPMG says $15.2-billion. On operating costs, DND estimates $9-billion, whereas the accountancy firm calculates $19.9-billion. But the vast majority of those cost differences can be explained by the different time-scales used – DND’s costs are for a 20-year period, while KPMG fulfilled the mandate given it by the Auditor-General to give Canadians a full costing over the 42-year lifespan of the F-35s. people need to understand that the acquisition costs of 8.9 billion is what we're REALLY talking about. the sustainment costs will be similar with ANY new fighter acquisition and the operating costs will be in the same ballpark too. if you want to have a conversation about whether we SHOULD have advanced fighters, or which ones are the best fit for our requirements, go to it. i welcome that conversation, but the F35 program and it's proponents are being railroaded."

That's the option I was hoping for too.

Maybe climate change is happening and maybe it isn't, maybe humans are the reason and maybe we aren't. The prudent course of action is to act as though it is happening and as though we have the means to effect a positive change. I'm having trouble with the logic behind transferring trillions of dollars to the less-developed countries though, can anyone explain why this is necessary? If the plan was to set achievable goals that gradually decrease CO2 emissions while taxing inefficient energy use, I'd be all for it - as long as the tax money stayed in my country and was used to fund development of alternative energy sources and industries. If the plan involves sending a big cheque to some African dictator though I can't help but feel that it's not about climate change at all.

See? Everything is more complicated than it seems.

Well, you might be closer but there's often no way of knowing that you aren't just caught in someone else's self-interested plan.

You can dig and research and replace one set of propaganda with another set but it doesn't mean you are any closer to the truth.

Don, an admirable goal but in this case I think it's far beyond reach; the "what" and the "who" are intermingled at a subatomic level. I don't have the time or the education to analyse the data myself and I don't trust any of the information available to me in the media; climate change is happening, or maybe it isn't, human are responsible, or maybe we aren't, cap and trade is a feasible solution, or maybe it isn't. The stuff that drives me crazy is when I find out that ethanol consumes more energy to produce than it nets (after my government has mandated it's inclusion in gasoline as a way of reducing energy consumption), when I find out that environmental impact of collecting and recycling may be higher than impact of just landfilling or that buying locally may result in higher energy cost than buying from some far-away place, etc, etc, etc. It's frustrating and more often than not I find myself unable to calculate the relative pros and cons of one choice vs another. What's missing for me is the foundation; reliable, complete information from a non-partisan source. Give me that and I'll be all over doing my part.

Mitch, I don't know if you can call it "good science" if it's based on flawed or cooked data. Although I draw no conclusion I find that the thing reeks - not a stretch at all to see the whole man-made-climate-change as a house of cards.

Ahhh, now this is not fair on your part. I choose not to reply because, as Mitch says, I don't know enough to be able to speak from any authority and I don't have the time or inclination to roam the interweb looking for the facts. It has nothing to do with making any judgement on woxof's social skills. In fact, I think you have crossed your own line and that calling someone else socially inept is in itself socially inept. Furthermore it appears that you have done this as a back-handed way of stifling him - you may wish to examine your own motivation in posting this.

Here's an interesting read on our current financial crisis. Rather long but well worth reading and it does have a tie-in with global warming - should be a real hit with any fellow conspiracy theorists. The Great American Bubble Machine Very entertaining writing style, here's the first paragraph: "The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled-dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates."