June 10, 2019

Conservative Party “has lost its nerve,” this time caving to left-wing mob on global warming

Ezra LevantRebel Commander

I saw the most curious Tweet on Saturday morning.

It’s by Lisa Raitt, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, and also the party’s Justice Critics. So, she's number two after party leader Andrew Scheer.

It said:

Well I’ve learned my lesson in tweeting anything about climate change. I’m going to be transparent & let you know I’m deleting the earlier tweets. I’m not the one to fight with on this because like most I believe that emissions cause climate change and we should reduce emissions

Over 1,200 people replied to this tweet. A few hundred retweeted it, and nearly 2,000 liked it. It got a lot of attention.

But so did her original tweets, the ones she clearly felt pressure into deleting.

What were they about?

Well, Raitt had tweeted a few mild statements about climate change, like this one:

“Bottom line is there’s no solid connection between climate change and the major indicators or extreme weather, despite Trudeau’s claims to the contrary. The continual claim of such a link is misinformation employed for political and rhetorical purposes”

Obviously that’s true. How could that not be true? Trudeau and Catherine McKenna literally blame fires that were caused by arson on global warming, to cite just one example.

And we know that average people in both Canada and the U.S. simply don’t care about global warming. Even Liberal MPS in Ontario say no-one cares, and they’re begging McKenna to give it a rest — they say the economy and immigration are the top two issues among voters they've spoken to.

So climate change would seem to be a great issue for the Conservatives. Sure, no global warming fanatic would ever consider voting Tory, so why not irritate them — and at the same time, win over the countless Canadians who either don’t care, or are actually sick of these jet-setting liars telling us how much they care about carbon? 

How about speaking out with some courage? It worked for Doug Ford, and it just worked in Australia. 

But my point is, whenever you blink like the deputy leader of the Conservatives did, whenever you give something away to your opponents — and renounce yourself, and everyone who is on your team and who hasn’t caved in yet — you demoralize your base.

And you thrill your opponents, as we saw from the reactions to Raitt's tweets.

Lisa Raitt says she’s "learned her lesson." How many times will that capitulation be used in campaign ads in the upcoming federal election? 

This is no a way to win an election.

But really, this is no different than the Conservative Party losing their nerve on a half dozen other issues, including free speech, which they no longer seem to concerned about based on their conduct these past two weeks.

And all of this losing, all of this surrendering, before the election campaign even begins...

NEXT: Did you see the massive rally in Hong Kong over the weekend? Tonight, Gordon Chang (author of The Coming Collapse of China) one of the world's leading experts on China, joins me to talk about the state of Hong Kong's relationship with China.

FINALLY: Your messages to me!

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2019-06-14 11:48:55 -0400 · Flag
Hate speech is verbally attacking someone for who they are… A simple definition that neuters the rest of your rant.

It’s odd that you find ambiguity in something that’s relatively simply defined, yet seek absolutes in something as pleomorphic as political definitions. You’ve got it backwards, Al – perhaps that can be the first pillar of rightiedom?
commented 2019-06-13 22:11:41 -0400 · Flag
“The problem is, Al, you’re trying to establish absolute boundaries, where none exist nor have ever existed.” Andrew Stephenson says:

“Yes it is all dream”, said Andrew always thrumming.
“Yes, all dream,” said Jill.
“There never was such a world,” said Andrew.
“No,” said Jill and Scrubb, “never was such a world.”
“There was never any world but mine,” said Andrew.

“Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that’s a small loss if the world’s as dull a place as you say.” Says Al.
commented 2019-06-13 22:01:54 -0400
You can’t restrict hate speech while maintaining freedom of speech, but you can’t respect the constitutional protections from hate speech without restricting it.
-————————————-
So now you are conflating freedom from discrimination and hate speech0 whatever that is. And it is whatever the Left doesn’t like. Way too much latitude to hand over to a government because government needs to be less not more.

Hate speech is a recent fabrication the west. If you do not allow hate speech you do not have free speech. I just showed you how you can have both free speech and protection from violence but not hurt feelings. Hurt feelings are a price we pay for freedom and always have.

If there are no absolutes, then the what constitutes hate speech is also drifting and undefinable so there is no point in getting all in huff about it. What is hate speech today may not be tomorrow. There are no absolutes, remember? Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes? If so, then stop talking about hate speech.

You just don’t like absolutes so you refuse to distinguish between people and principles. So you conflate them to make them seem the same. People can cave in and shirk their position and defining principles but the principles themselves remain the principles regardless of where people mistakenly wander. When “conservatives” wander left regardless of where you think the centre is they have ceased to be conservative regardless of what label they carry. They no longer fit the definition of conservative.

As many a mother has asked,“If everyone else jumped off a bridge would you jump too?” No need to answer that we know you’d jump with the herd of lemmings.

The policies must be examined- cherrypicking is such a derogatory term- to demonstrate the commitment to the principles. Andy has no principles except the Leftist ones- votes at any price. There is no other way to discern adherence to conservative principles and positions. But then the refusal to exercise discernment is the 3rd pillar of Leftiedom which is why you refuse to exercise it.
commented 2019-06-13 12:41:55 -0400 · Flag
“You assume that freedom of expression would necessarily prevent a lack of discrimination.”

Considering this very question has been fought in courts repeatedly, it’s clearly a valid assumption. .It comes down to the question, do you restrict hate speech. Very blunt, but that’s’ what it fundamentally boils down to. You can’t restrict hate speech while maintaining freedom of speech, but you can’t respect the constitutional protections from hate speech without restricting it.

“How does Invertebrate Andy’s position on the re-invoking of section 13 show “high freedom”? It obviously does not. How does his whipping his MPs to support the Paris Accord show it” It doesn’t. How does his support of government mandated price controls on “supply management”

Yet he’s anti-carbon tax and pro free trade and running on a mildly austere platform. Shades of grey, Al. Politics is a murky place, not black and white. Tariffs and legislated morality are big-government policy, vs free trade and social freeoms, and in that regard the Canadian Liberals are actually the antithesis of the supposedly conservative American government. You can cherry pick individual policies all day and argue anything, which is of course why it’s so muddy and why partisan absolutes are nonsense.
commented 2019-06-12 23:49:03 -0400
Andrew, your muddy style reminds me of the White Witch in, The Silver Chair by C.S.Lewis. The White Witch is attempting to gaslight Puddlegum and the Children by denying that the real world ever existed:

“The problem is, Al, you’re trying to establish absolute boundaries, where none exist nor have ever existed”, as you say.

The White Witch says:

“Yes it is all dream”, said the Witch always thrumming.
“Yes, all dream,” said Jill.
“There never was such a world,” said the Witch.
“No,” said Jill and Scrubb, “never was such a world.”
“There was never any world but mine,” said the Witch.
“There was never any world but yours,” said they….

But Puddleglum nailed it:

“Suppose we have only dreamed. or made up, all those things- trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then alI I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow.

That’s why I’m going to stand by the play-world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if their is no Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnia as I can even if this isn’t any Narnia. So thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady re ready. we’re leaving your court at once and setting gout in the dark for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that’s a small loss if the world’s as dull a place as you say."
commented 2019-06-12 23:49:03 -0400
Andrew, your muddy style reminds me of the White Witch in, The Silver Chair by C.S.Lewis. The White Witch is attempting to gaslight Puddlegum and the Children by denying that the real world ever existed:

“The problem is, Al, you’re trying to establish absolute boundaries, where none exist nor have ever existed”, as you say.

The White Witch says:

“Yes it is all dream”, said the Witch always thrumming.
“Yes, all dream,” said Jill.
“There never was such a world,” said the Witch.
“No,” said Jill and Scrubb, “never was such a world.”
“There was never any world but mine,” said the Witch.
“There was never any world but yours,” said they….

But Puddleglum nailed it:

“Suppose we have only dreamed. or made up, all those things- trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then alI I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow.

That’s why I’m going to stand by the play-world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if their is no Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnia as I can even if this isn’t any Narnia. So thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady re ready. we’re leaving your court at once and setting gout in the dark for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that’s a small loss if the world’s as dull a place as you say."
commented 2019-06-12 23:49:02 -0400
Andrew, your muddy style reminds me of the White Witch in, The Silver Chair by C.S.Lewis. The White Witch is attempting to gaslight Puddlegum and the Children by denying that the real world ever existed:

“The problem is, Al, you’re trying to establish absolute boundaries, where none exist nor have ever existed”, as you say.

The White Witch says:

“Yes it is all dream”, said the Witch always thrumming.
“Yes, all dream,” said Jill.
“There never was such a world,” said the Witch.
“No,” said Jill and Scrubb, “never was such a world.”
“There was never any world but mine,” said the Witch.
“There was never any world but yours,” said they….

But Puddleglum nailed it:

“Suppose we have only dreamed. or made up, all those things- trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then alI I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow.

That’s why I’m going to stand by the play-world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if their is no Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnia as I can even if this isn’t any Narnia. So thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady re ready. we’re leaving your court at once and setting gout in the dark for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that’s a small loss if the world’s as dull a place as you say."
commented 2019-06-12 23:15:29 -0400 · Flag
…freedom of expression/speech vs freedom from discrimination. They can’t both be true. How do you address that?
-—————————————
“True” is a strange word to use. How can “freedom from discrimination” be true or false? I think what you are trying to say is that they can’t both exist at the same time. Of course they can. You assume that freedom of expression would necessarily prevent a lack of discrimination. Once again it all comes down to that favourite tactic of the Left to play fast and loose with definitions. It is completely possible to say that I think Mojums are corrupt and useless without acting against them. Freedom of Expression is maintained and Mojums are unharmed. That is the way it worked in Western society until the marxists went to work on us. There was of course never a golden age.

I can even call for the deportation of Mojums if I can prove that they are detrimental to the safety, liberty and well being of society. The fact that Mojums and their supporters don’t like it is irrelevant. If they are a detriment they should be removed. There is no right of Freedom form Hurt Feelings. You are conflating feelings with rights. Lefties always like to do that. The Coper affair is a case in point. Cooper read from the writings of a terrorist to rove that the previous speaker was falsely aligning conservatives with anti-muslim terrorists. The truth of this was never challenged.

They simply took umbrage with the poor liars feelings being hurt and ordered the parliamentary record to be changed. Truth be damned in the Leftist mind. Feelings of a liar trump truth. The statements Cooper read were not being supported by him they were simply used as evidence against what the previous liar had said.

So in order to quash freedom of expression the non-right of freedom from hurt feelings was invoked. And the hurt was further enhanced by taking umbrage at the source of the message as though the words themselves are like magic incantation that have the power to drive people into a frenzy of violence by their mere utterance.
This nonsense allows no discussion to take place and allows the Left to be arbiters of truth and what discussion can take place.

The problem is, Al, you’re trying to establish absolute boundaries, where none exist nor have ever existed.
-————————————-
Of course those boundaries have existed just like our boundaries that we call borders. It is only recently that the Leftists have attempted to deny both and convince people that they never did.

The examples I gave of Cooper et al show this. I don’t recall the Parliamentary record ever being expunged because some liar got caught in his lie and had his feelings hurt.

Never, until the last few years have textual sources of any kind been disallowed whether Mein Kampf or the Elders of Zion. You need to learn the difference between use and mention of a word or idea. And if someone wants to quote-even favourably- from Mein Kampf in Parliament it should be allowed and then argued on the worth, or lack thereof, of its content. It should not be disallowed from discussion. That has been the British Parliamentary system for hundreds of years.

There is no deflection on my side and you are the one always going on about how semantics redefines things as though that is a get-out-of-rational-thought, logic-and-evidence-free card.

You define conservatism by small government and high freedom? I don’t believe that’s necessarily irreconcilable with their current platforms.
-—————————————
How does Invertebrate Andy’s position on the re-invoking of section 13 show “high freedom”? It obviously does not. How does his whipping his MPs to support the Paris Accord show it" It doesn’t. How does his support of government mandated price controls on "supply management " show smaller and less intrusive government? It doesn’t? As the old saying goes, if wishes were horses then beggars would ride. Your wanting it to be so doesn’t make it so. It is more of your deceptive lies to try to convince conservatives that they can still be conservatives while abandoning all foundational principles.

There is no one who pays attention to the bigger picture than I . You are the one who ignores history and evidence that does not suit your preconceived ideas. Otherwise known as lies. Why do you want to believe these carefully crafted lies, anyway?

I accuse you of promulgating lies simply because you do. Babies are parasites, remember?
commented 2019-06-12 22:25:23 -0400
I don’t think I ever did try to conflate the two, actually. The one time I sort-of-interchangeably used the term I put the word “conservative” in quotes which would, ordinarily, indicate a less than literal intent. You may have interpreted it as such, and even believe that to be your “truth”, but that wasn’t ever my intent. Of course, I find it fascinating that that’s what you’ve fixated on.

You define conservatism by small government and high freedom? I don’t believe that’s necessarily irreconcilable with their current platforms. Perhaps the flavour of freedom differs from your own priorities, but certain contrary goals are always going to be tough to balance – most notably, freedom of expression/speech vs freedom from discrimination. They can’t both be true. How do you address that? Further Scheer has put forth a timid, but extant, austerity platform, indicating that he is at least in principle, economically in favour of smaller government.

The problem is, Al, you’re trying to establish absolute boundaries, where none exist nor have ever existed. I would also guess, as is often the case, that the deflections and semantics indicate you know that and want to stay away from the bigger-picture, instead going to the old standby of accusing others of “promulgating lies” (an impossibility on matters of opinion anyway).
commented 2019-06-12 14:28:12 -0400
Interesting accusation. You seem to realize that, conceptually at least, “conservatism” is something of a fluid concept. Right of centre means right of centre. Pick Joe Average, have him look politically to his right. That’s tight of centre. In modern Canada, that means, in essence, slightly more (not much more) neoliberal economically policies than the Left. Bit by bit the whole political spectrum moves left. This is especially true in Canada where social conservatism really can’t gain traction.
-——————————————
It is what is called, “the truth”. When the semantic range of a word becomes too wide it ceases to have any meaning and falls out of use.

You keep trying to conflate “right of center” with “conservative”. But no one is buying your lies. (Why do you want to believe and promulgate them?).

Right of centre may be right of centre but when conservatives move to left they cease to be conservative. They become Liberal or NDP leftist. Conservatism has certain founding definitions and principles- small government, individual rights, free speech, etc. Because a bunch of gutless wonders abandon them does not mean conservatism has changed. It simply means that former conservatives have abandoned conservatism. An analogy would be crossing the floor. You are no longer in party “A” you are a member of party “B”.

Nice try. Keep using the McKenna/Goebbel’s strategy. It might work someday but only about the low information knuckleheads. You’re welcome to them.
commented 2019-06-12 13:13:15 -0400 · Flag
The CPC “vote splitting” propaganda re Max Bernier is exactly what the CPC are doing with the librano’s/NDP. The most frustrating thing with conservative people is their ability to believe the lie of vote splitting with the PPC so they do not have to make a “change”. They are adamant despite overwhelming evidence of Scheer’s capitulation to the left and lack of conservative values, that Scheer is the better person even though they like and believe in everything that the PPC stand for. Too stupid for words.
commented 2019-06-12 10:54:37 -0400
ROBERT RAYMOND commented 19 hours ago
The population of Canada and our climate of long cold winters ensure that on a per capita basis, we produce more GHG than some one living on a Polynesian island.
However, given that there are under 40,000,000 Canadians as compared to the population of India, China and many far eastern countries, our contribution to the total amount of GHG is fractional at best.
What we do or don’t do has a very limited impact on the environment.”

Climate really doesn’t explain it. Quebec’s emissions are very low, near western-Europe levels, and were Alberta (60t/ca) to emit at Manitoba levels (18t/ca) we’d meet our Paris commitments overnight.

India emits less than three times what Canada does, despite its much higher population.

“So, by your definition, right of centre actually means nothing. When anything can be right of centre the word carries no meaning. The headline talks about conservatives moving left. Which means that conservatives are normally on the right. Only you have the creative horse pucker. Why DO you want to believe and promulgate lies?”

Interesting accusation. You seem to realize that, conceptually at least, “conservatism” is something of a fluid concept. Right of centre means right of centre. Pick Joe Average, have him look politically to his right. That’s tight of centre. In modern Canada, that means, in essence, slightly more (not much more) neoliberal economically policies than the Left. Bit by bit the whole political spectrum moves left. This is especially true in Canada where social conservatism really can’t gain traction.

“As to who is the weaker in the Ontario the NDP or the Liberals, the Provincial Liberals brand was so badly damaged, that they only got 7 seats and lost official party status. Unlike the last election they won’t be able to offer Junior much support.”

The Ontario NDP had one of its best turnouts in decades. Federally, they’re polling at half what the Ontario version are, which reduces vote-splitting dramatically. Canada as a whole is much more geographically compartmentalized than Ontario as well – the surging Greens will almost certainly win them more seats in BC, while the Libs are going to hang on to a lot of their seats in the Maritimes and Quebec. GTA is a bit murkier, but the CPC has the Doug Ford problem there. Trudeau ism’t nearly as unpopular as Wynne was.
commented 2019-06-12 10:35:37 -0400
LIZA ROSIE commented 19 hours ago
Your scientists Andrew say we are having an influence, mine say it isn’t an amount worth consideration, and more and more are saying it everyday. Many are speaking out as they retire and aren’t under the threat of losing funding anymore. Fix volcano’s and then we’ll talk. "

A few do say that, although a lot of those retired scientists aren’t climate scientists, and most of the observations noting minimal change are local rather than planetary. Why do you feel the few that dissent are more reliable than the majority who don’t?

Which volcanoes are those? Volcanos actually seem to cause a transient cooling due to sulphur and dust, nor has there been a sudden surge in volcanic activity sufficient to explain it. (Mt. St. Helens released on the order of a few tens of millions of tonnes of CO2, less than Alberta emits in a year). Also, let’s just say for a moment that if you burn a bunch of carbon containing fuels, chances are pretty good that it was burning the fuel that put the carbon dioxide there, not “volcanoes”.

I do appreciate that you acknowledge that atmospheric gas balances affect climate. We’ve got the Deniers acknowledging most of the basic principles these days, the deduction will happen.

“I notice you never address the social control/government revenue stream scam/ UN and corrupt ‘philanthropist’ part of the argument. Do you think it conspiracy theory?”

I think most of the hyperbole around the UN is hyperbolic. There are very few actual arguments, either economic or social, against efficient, ecologically conscious lifestyles.
commented 2019-06-11 22:14:47 -0400
In otherwords, I would also be pro a level 4 treatment facility and not a basic tertiary treatment plant.
commented 2019-06-11 22:07:32 -0400 · Flag
And, although the Susuki foundation supported a sewage treatment plant with tertiary treatment, UV radiation only kills some bacteria and leaves food for other bacteria upon the site of its disposal and chemically treated water makes for tougher organisms that kill wildlife if the chemicals don’t weaken the Orcas themselves so they succumb to disease in my belief.
I’m pro-incinerating the bacteria by it being boiled.
The other methods just feed to strengthen bacteria in my opinion.
commented 2019-06-11 19:20:27 -0400 · Flag
ANDREW STEPHENSON
As highlighted in our previous discussions, even subtle changes in semantics can change interpretation pretty dramatically. This is evident in the differences in doctrine between Christian sects.
-—————————————-
But the text has no semantics only readers and speakers do. And they only cause problems when they intend to lie. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Differences between most Christian sects are quite minor actually.
commented 2019-06-11 19:15:20 -0400 · Flag
ANDREW STEPHENSON commented 5 hours ago
“That is absolute nonsense. In what way was Pol Pot a conservative? He held none of the classical conservative values. Your desire to believe in lies make you more and more ludicrous with each passing day. "7
I didn’t say conservative. I said right-of-centre.

“So why don’t we say that since the conservatives are moving more to the left then the left must be becoming more conservative since that is where conservatives are headed? Good to see the nation becoming more conservative. "

I suppose you could make that argument, although it would require a particularly creative definition of “conserative”
-—————
Not as much as “parasite” or “Right”.

So, by your definition, right of centre actually means nothing. When anything can be right of centre the word carries no meaning. The headline talks about conservatives moving left. Which means that conservatives are normally on the right. Only you have the creative horse pucker. Why DO you want to believe and promulgate lies?
commented 2019-06-11 18:00:46 -0400 · Flag
Last time I checked Andrew, the Federal election is first past the post just like the provincial one and the Tories did very well indeed in that election thanks very much.
As to who is the weaker in the Ontario the NDP or the Liberals, the Provincial Liberals brand was so badly damaged, that they only got 7 seats and lost official party status. Unlike the last election they won’t be able to offer Junior much support.
In addition, maybe you haven’t noticed, but the Boy Blunder hasn’t exactly been setting the world on fire (except on the foreign affairs front) the last six months and his brand has also been badly damaged. Maybe Singh or even (gasp) May don’t look so bad, especially in BC.
Who said all those who voted Liberal and NDP in Ontario did so to combat climate change? Most of them are just the usual suspects who vote for a party out of habit. The voters are not environmental extremists, but the Ontario Liberal leadership most certainly were and they got trounced at the polls as a result.
I do so hope the Liberals are listening to Andrew and double down on stupid.
commented 2019-06-11 16:52:03 -0400 · Flag
Last rant.
Garbage trolls only know how to teach dumpster diving.
There is zero basic industry taught.
Why can a kid in Thailand make a Jacuzzi out of clay bricks and our kids rummage through trash?
Our kids don’t have any concept of craftsmen ship. If they did, they might be independent & get paid.
They’re not taught to supply for themselves but rather fight for scraps to survive.
Let’s see how school boards like that point & hit the Lefty’s where they hurt, our most precious resource, children.
commented 2019-06-11 16:41:59 -0400 · Flag
These “eco savages” teach kids to rummage around the garbage for stuff to survive with all the time.
Its not being thrifty. Guess what else is cheap? Panning for gold.
They can build stuff with glue and sticks and that’s more economical than paying for tape, staples, crayons and paper day and day out.
They can MELT the fricking plastic back to oil by grade five.
They don’t teach how to recycle electronics because there is actual education in that topic.
Teach your kids proper resource development now before they get brainwashed even further.
Giant shitte green scam.
commented 2019-06-11 16:03:58 -0400 · Flag
All these eco terrorists and eco terrorist sympathisers do is push garbage like “animals have more property rights than humans” and deny sewage as a pollutant.
What a great arguement for a totalitarian state! “Humans deserve no rights and enjoyment of life by squalloring in filth”.
They have criminals as leaders in their movement and call their actions “civil disobedience” while erasing their aggressive actions from history so they can akin themselves to Ghandi.
Guess what? These pissants aren’t environmental activists. They’re not even thugs. They’re tyranical, terrorist loving piles of garbage themselves.
The only thing they seed is bullshit.
A ‘real’ conservative, Johnny Appleseed did more for western thought than those garbage trolls ever did.
Frig holding Scheer the Coward to account, get Suzuki and Berman to denouce tree spiking.
I never seen or heard them do that and frankly, anybody who doesn’t ask is as much a coward as the CPC.
commented 2019-06-11 15:44:58 -0400 · Flag
When climate “alarmist” ring the alarm, they threaten revolt against our everyday way of life like its a penalty to be free.
When eco “radicals” tree spike and threaten riots while whitewashing history to call it “civil disobedience”, they deserve no credit to be argued with, let alone cowtowed too.
If you threaten someone’s safety for political purposes, either through threat of riot or by acts of outright murder, the gov’t should treat the cause the same as any other terrorism. Its grandscale eco terrorism and extortion.
Just now the scheme is black mail funneled through a straw and cash thrown in a one use plastic bag.
Using garbage for fuel is so primitive, developing countries bought it to heat their homes because they couldn’t afford a lump of coal. There was no reason to sell it internationally when we could have burnt it ourselves decades ago and make the price of oil go up as a special live giving commodity.
What the Liberals are doing to price out oil & gas is to arrest capitalism itself & to degrade our existence to that of a developing country. Instead of encouraging countries to buy oil, they reduce us to burn garbage in an oil drum by the rail road tracks and I’m sick of it.
In short, the Liberals war with choice is rampant. Then half-assed Trudeau playing the appology circuit like its the only thing Canadians do.
I’m not voting for Bernier but Scheer can handle the wrath of our criticisms one way or the other.
commented 2019-06-11 15:35:44 -0400 · Flag
Mark Stein is being sued by Michael Mann because Stein claims that Mann’s data is faulty and has asked Mann to produce the data he used to generate his famous hockey stick graph so readily adopted by Al Gore.
Mann does not want to make the data public which makes his whole argument on global warming suspect.
If his data was accurate, why is he hiding it?
The only conclusion is that the data is bogus and he knows it.
commented 2019-06-11 15:30:25 -0400 · Flag
The population of Canada and our climate of long cold winters ensure that on a per capita basis, we produce more GHG than some one living on a Polynesian island.
However, given that there are under 40,000,000 Canadians as compared to the population of India, China and many far eastern countries, our contribution to the total amount of GHG is fractional at best.
What we do or don’t do has a very limited impact on the environment.
commented 2019-06-11 15:19:50 -0400
Your scientists Andrew say we are having an influence, mine say it isn’t an amount worth consideration, and more and more are saying it everyday. Many are speaking out as they retire and aren’t under the threat of losing funding anymore. Fix volcano’s and then we’ll talk.

I notice you never address the social control/government revenue stream scam/ UN and corrupt ‘philanthropist’ part of the argument. Do you think it conspiracy theory? Most climate fanatics poo poo it either out of ignorance or fear. You never touch it.
commented 2019-06-11 15:03:49 -0400 · Flag
LIZA ROSIE commented 7 mins ago
Nobody said Bernier was a climate scientist Andrew, but he understands that the science is never settled, the models are flawed and the data is manipulated. That can be proven, if you are looking for “independently confirmable”

Saying it’s not settled means that human influence is very possible. To say otherwise is to settle it. We must look at the preponderance of evidence, and it’s far more consistent with a human influence than current trends being purely natural.

If someone can come up with a model that explains things purely as natural and can conciliate that with rising GHG levels somehow not having any impact, then it’s worth a look. To date, nobody has, which is why the opposition relies on handwaving about flawed models. Yes, they’re flawed. Models always are. It’s impossible not to lose something in simplification or due to variables you haven’t identified. That does not make them invalid or useless for general understanding.

Basically, the science may not be “settled”, but right now the science says we’re having an influence. In future that may be shown wrong, but it may also be further supported. We must go on what currently seems likeliest, which is that anthropogenic climate change is real.
commented 2019-06-11 14:57:41 -0400
ROBERT MCCLELLAND commented 2 hours ago
Andrew obviously has forgotten what happened in Ontario last year where the coming federal election will be decided. In light of what happed to the far left environmentalists in the Provincial election”

What happened to those “far left environmentalists”? You do know that they got almost 60% of the vote, and it was only because that was split three ways that Ford won? Does that three-way split look possible Federally at this point given how weak the NDP is (vs. the very strong returns for the Ontario NDP?)

The US polls were dead on. They showed the Dems winning the popular vote by a couple percent… and the Dems won the popular vote by a few percent. You’d expect it to be pretty rare that someone wins the electoral college while losing the vote that much, but sometimes that 1/5 fluke event happens.

“But I thought you said we were a fringe. Can a fringe overrun a party?”

If your party is comprised of fringe players, yes. How many CPC castoffs are in the PPC’s slate? It’s a coalition of those too fringey for the CPC.

“They all have the same content. "

As highlighted in our previous discussions, even subtle changes in semantics can change interpretation pretty dramatically. This is evident in the differences in doctrine between Christian sects.

LIZA ROSIE commented 2 hours ago
The PPC is not a libertarian party. It is the only party with conservative values.”

Bernier himself is a self-identified Libertarian and ran as such during his CPC leadership bid. How his party ended up Big C is a bit of a headscratcher. I suspect that he had little choice to fill out his slate.
commented 2019-06-11 14:53:05 -0400 · Flag
“… Support for the “fight against climate change” is a mile wide and a quarter of an inch deep. …”

So very true especially when you consider who the Libtards chose as the main cheerleader for so many years and his tactics.

Then:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsLOcZQheoE
1972 clip of David Suzuki

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/30/the-worst-kind-of-ugly-propaganda-david-suzuki-targets-kids-at-christmas-in-the-name-of-climate-chnage/

Now under Trudeau:
https://freedomoutpost.com/canadian-government-santa-climate-refugee-moving-south-pole-escape-global-warming/
https://www.cfact.org/2017/12/24/govt-website-claims-santa-will-move-to-the-south-pole-to-escape-global-warming/