# The unintended consequences of the egotistical climate protesters



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Is more authoritative in your face in your wallet government. Lol these guys think they are so powerful they have the power to control the climate based on a bogus theory. Come on does any one really trust wanting the government to tax us more & tell us how to heat our homes so they can fine tune the temp with in .5 degrees.

The protesters are dumber then the dumbest person in the protests.

How many protesters are making money from the government in regards to trying to control the climate ?


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Most school kids will take a day off school for nearly any reason. When they agree to stop using their devices because of the cost to manufacture distribute and run them, I will pay attention. Right now it is the other guy who must act, same as Trudeau.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I doubt there are any unintended consequences of the rallies. 

The consequences are all intended.......more public awareness, political pressure on governments, and a show of unity around the world.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

There are consequences sags, kids have been brainashed into believing the climate change scam. Theys didn't take the day off school on their own initiative...it was an organized protest by people other than them with a political agenda. They're just pawns. If you think it's a show of unity, then you're more gullible than I originally thought.


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

lonewolf :) said:


> Is more authoritative in your face in your wallet government.


I can't for the life of me make sense of this statement, no matter how many times I read it.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

kcowan said:


> Most school kids will take a day off school for nearly any reason.


No kidding...back in the day we took off a day to protest our schools policy on minimum length of mini skirt...maybe 1968. 1972 we took off every day of the Canada-Russia series. School sucked as a kid...any excuse to skip.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

It is quite telling that the #1 country producer of carbon emissions in the world had exactly 0 students out protesting. Norway can buy as many electric cars as they want, they are literally irrelevant as the majority of the world, which absolutely gives zero cares about carbon emissions, carries on as it will. The shame is that it is a solvable problem, but not really solvable with any solutions proposed by any of these groups.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Greta Thunberg and the students have started something that can't be contained or shuffled off any longer. 

Over 4,000,000 climate change activists in 163 countries, including 1,000,000 in Germany alone. Record size crowds in the UK and other countries.

Climate change deniers can spin it any way they want. The people are fed up with stalling tactics. They want action now.

It will be interesting to see how all the Canadian political parties handle the questions on climate change during the debates.


----------



## condor (Jun 15, 2014)

Gosh...i put the challenge out to...SAGGY BRAIN...a week ago.

The simple challenge is...the same people who said we are all going to die...maybe this Fiday...stated clearly ..shutting down all homes..factories...airplanes...cars...trucks..lawn mowers..power saws...mortacycles...the change from Canada constributing figure of 1.6...the difference is so small..it cqnnot be measured...something like.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001 %.

So where does this carbon tax..or solar...or wind...enter the picture. One guy on this forum was quite proud he went solar on his house..takes short trips in his car....but holy..BATMAN...he flys for business...the horror of it

Its all..bullshit...fake..
flying pigs...unicorns..
Is anybody out there going to take up the challenge ...or...deflect to a side issue to change the channel

Wow....watch the channel changers light their hair on fire

Sad...just Sad....


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

sags said:


> Greta Thunberg and the students have started something that can't be contained or shuffled off any longer.
> 
> *Over 4,000,000 climate change activists in 163 countries, including 1,000,000 in Germany alone. Record size crowds in the UK and other countries.
> *


Wow 4M? So I suppose the headline could be: 99.95% of Global Population uninterested in climate change activism despite constant pressures to participate. 1% of Germans relent. 



sags said:


> Climate change deniers can spin it any way they want. *The people are fed up with stalling tactics. They want action now.
> *
> It will be interesting to see how all the Canadian political parties handle the questions on climate change during the debates.


I had no idea that age 12-22 urban children and age 60+ hippies constituted "The People".

"Spin" indeed.

Edit: Another good headline might be: "Up to 20% of new car sales hoped to be electric after ten to fifteen more years of propaganda and shame-tactics being thrown at consumers and billions spent on direct electric car subsidies".

20% is all they're predicting, and not for 10+ more years, and not without massive fake discounts... That really sounds like "the people" are super, super serious about this climate crisis, eh? Not.


----------



## condor (Jun 15, 2014)

Channel changer...did not address issue


----------



## accord1999 (Aug 9, 2013)

sags said:


> Greta Thunberg and the students have started something that can't be contained or shuffled off any longer.
> 
> Over 4,000,000 climate change activists in 163 countries,


How many in countries that matter? 



> including 1,000,000 in Germany alone.


I wonder how many of these would be dead if Germany actually followed their lame-brain demands to stop all carbon and nuclear fuel use? It's ironic that on the day of the strike, wind power in Germany dropped to a fraction of its capacity, highlighting its unreliability. Fortunately, as usual for Germany, coal and natural gas save the day and nuclear continues to chug along, until German politicians force their premature shutdown.












> The people are fed up with stalling tactics. They want action now.


Even more so when European electricity systems collapse even as rates continue to increase. Especially during cold winter evenings when demand peaks in Europe.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Toronto is going to join 800 other municipalities by declaring a climate change emergency.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-tory-climate-emergency-1.5291269

Canada is lagging behind the other G7 countries. The time for talking is over. 

https://globalnews.ca/news/5801530/...xGqECg.0&utm_referrer=https://www.google.com/

In a poll asking Canadians if they believed there is a climate change emergency, only 7% somewhat disagreed or strongly disagreed.

I think some of the 7% are CMF members. Climate change is the number 1 issue for Canadians.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/09/20/news/climate-change-number-1-concern-canadians-poll-says

As Sgt. Bill Friday said..........."just the facts m'aam"


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

accord1999 said:


> ... Even more so when European electricity systems collapse even as rates continue to increase. Especially during cold winter evenings when demand peaks in Europe.


They can send all the motivated youth out to pilfer coal and wood to keep warm. 

Just like the good old days, except someone will develop a search app for it and make $ billions as well.


----------



## accord1999 (Aug 9, 2013)

sags said:


> Climate change is the number 1 issue for Canadians.


Yet they're not willing to pay for it.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-poll-climate-change-1.5178514



> while nearly two-thirds of Canadians see fighting climate change as a top priority, half of those surveyed would not shell out more than $100 per year in taxes to prevent climate change, the equivalent of less than $9 a month.


It's so important, most aren't even willing to pay a cup of coffee a day for it.

The reality is that it's easy to signal your virtue by claiming it's important, even while you don't want to pay more taxes, get higher utility bills, take fewer vacations, drive less, stay colder in the winter and warmer in the summer, etc.. Anything that affects your quality of life. Let alone implement the demands of the extreme activists that will cause far more economic damage and loss of lives than minor warming.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Canadians expect the polluters to pay the cost. The carbon tax should be increased every year.


----------



## hboy54 (Sep 16, 2016)

sags said:


> Canadians expect the polluters to pay the cost. The carbon tax should be increased every year.


Why? Why not just set it at $5/litre now? Why wait?


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

hboy54 said:


> Why? Why not just set it at $5/litre now? Why wait?


Oh no. Horgan would have a coronary. Or he'd dust off his suggestion that Alberta needs to refine and send more product to GVA.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

*Net Zero by 2040. Then what?*

If we should reach the goal of net zero carbon emissions by 2040, yippee for us; but what's that going to do about global warming? 

If global warming was exclusively caused by human activity, then eliminating it would surely end the 'crisis'. Right Greta? But... human activity has just added to the GHGs causing global warming. The Earth has been coasting towards warmer climate for the last 11,000 years or so; we modern-day humans just stepped on the gas pedal ( literally, in this case ). If we get our foot off the gas, it will go back to it's own pace of warming until it eventually threatens human survival. The warming cycle feeds on itself - the melting arctic ice releases the Methane trapped in the ground from the rotting plant material that was there when the arctic was last grasslands. Methane is a major GHG; this causes more warming - rinse & repeat. You might say "Oh, that will be in over 100,000 years". I once thought so too, but there have been times when the climate changed drastically in just a few decades. 

So it seems that, at any given time in the Earth's history, climate was either warming or cooling, based on a whole lot of factors besides just the greenhouse effect. A steady state of constant temperature is unstable, and can be easily and abruptly tipped in either the warm or cold direction. 

I can see two possible scenarios...

1. Warming causes large areas of coastline to flood, displacing millions if not billions of people worldwide. Many areas around the world, that now support agriculture, may become deserts or be underwater. North America still has lots of open land for people to resettle; immigration will become a big issue. Highly industrialized countries might be able to shore-up infrastructure to hold back the rising oceans in some critical coastal areas. Poorer sea-level nations will not do so well. The Canadian Arctic will thaw, and vast grasslands re-appear. Indigenous peoples will plant crops, and become super rich selling food to everybody.

2. Cooling causes large migrations of population towards lower latitudes. Large areas of agriculture are lost. Canada is under a mile of ice, and its entire population is crammed in, starving, with the Americans. Canadians re-release "Come From Away" to remind the Americans why we should be allowed to stay there for a few thousand years.


For all the kids out there skipping school today to protest climate change inaction, here's your reading assignment...

https://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/su.../ice-ages-what-are-they-and-what-causes-them/

https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/1

There will be a test tomorrow on what you will do as future leaders to ensure the planet behaves exactly how we want it to.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

sags said:


> Canadians expect the polluters to pay the cost. The carbon tax should be increased every year.


I liked Pat Brown's approach which was to go ahead and apply the carbon tax the way the feds wanted, then wind back other taxes to stay even. Personally, I think gas is too cheap in Canada -- it should be more like Germany (over $2/L equivalent) so there's a real incentive to be more efficient, drive smaller cars, drive less and so forth. The extra price should go into fixing our godforsaken passenger trains.

I am particularly pissed off with Ford endlessly fighting a losing battle in the courts on the tax and, in a fit of "reduced government regulation" forcing gas stations to put their childish stickers on the pumps.


----------



## hboy54 (Sep 16, 2016)

hboy54 said:


> Why? Why not just set it at $5/litre now? Why wait?


Well sags, still waiting for an answer. You have posted multiple times in other threads. Why no response here?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Consumers need time to adjust to paying increasing prices, and change their driving habits and vehicles to accommodate the higher prices.

It is well documented that when gas prices rise consumers buy smaller fuel efficient vehicles. When gas prices decline they go back to buying SUVs.

Time and capital is also needed to build the supporting infrastructure for electric vehicle charging. A graduated carbon tax will provide both.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Some people still don't understand that doing nothing and delay are no longer viable options. Fortunately their numbers will continue to decline.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> Time and capital is also needed to build the supporting infrastructure for electric vehicle charging. A graduated carbon tax will provide both.


Electric vehicles have been around just as long as ICE vehicles. If they were economically viable they wouldn't have to be subsidized.

If all the climate alarmists spent their own money on electric cars then the increased demand would drive price down. But they don't do that...they demand that other people subsidize their choices.

Every suggestion you make requires someone else to pay for it. When someone else has to pay for your ideas it's a good indication that they're not good ideas.


----------



## hboy54 (Sep 16, 2016)

sags said:


> Consumers need time to adjust to paying increasing prices, and change their driving habits and vehicles to accommodate the higher prices.
> 
> It is well documented that when gas prices rise consumers buy smaller fuel efficient vehicles. When gas prices decline they go back to buying SUVs.
> 
> Time and capital is also needed to build the supporting infrastructure for electric vehicle charging. A graduated carbon tax will provide both.


But according to you and others, the situation is so desperate, there isn't time to dither with a half measure. The go slow plan is guaranteed failure.

The reality is that most people who talk the talk are unwilling to walk the walk. Including you and James and Trudeau. See the recent survey about the whole $100/ head some people are willing to personally contribute to solving the problem. If all the Canadians who profess to be really worried about this actually acted on their beliefs, we would not need government action.

Here are some of the ways that I have run my life that are advantageous to solving the problem. I confess that I lived this way for economic not environmental reasons, but there is considerable synergy between getting wealthy and having a smaller environmental footprint. Maybe you and James and Trudeau and others can steal a few ideas here.

I don't much use airplanes. To the best of my recollection, in my entire life, have purchased one flight from Vancouver to Toronto, and a return flight from Toronto to Vancouver. I also had a gifted return Toronto to Florida flight. And I came over from the UK as a 3 year old. That is the extent of my lifetime personal flying.

Live in a smaller house. My first house was 1000 square feet and current abode is 1500, both figures well under the average house size these days.

Use bicycles. Some years ago I estimated that my lifetime cycling distance was over 100,000 km.

Avoid car ownership. I am slipping here, but I can report that I did not own a vehicle until age 32 or so. Most of the time that we owned vehicles, we have been a single vehicle household.

Anyhow, I would support an immediate $1/litre gas tax (and similar tax on natural gas, propane etc) if any political party really wanted to stand up on their hind legs and make a serious attempt at fixing climate change. It would cost without changing driving habits about $3000 annually here. I suspect it would cost most of the fake concern people such as yourself and James and Trudeau much more, and thus be an unsupported platform.

There you have it. A conservative supporting serious action and the liberals, well let's see how they respond.


----------



## hboy54 (Sep 16, 2016)

sags said:


> Some people still don't understand that doing nothing and delay are no longer viable options. Fortunately their numbers will continue to decline.


You don't understand that the current Liberal plan is a do nothing and delay plan. It is not a viable plan.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Climate hypocrites...do as I say not as I do:

"Democrat presidential candidates took part in the Polk County Democrats Steak Fry in Iowa Saturday, which featured thousands of sizzling steaks.

Their participation follows weeks of climate change alarmism from the presidential candidates, many of whom have signaled support for limiting beef consumption in order to combat what they say is a looming climate catastrophe.

According to reports, organizers were prepared to grill roughly 10,500 steaks plus 1,000 vegan burgers."

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...eir-meat-consumption-climate-change-concerns/


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It is well known the total emissions from people eating grains and fiber rich vegetables (beans) are higher than the total emissions from cow farts.

Save the planet.........eat more beef and less flatulence inducing grains and legumes.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

So now that Greta Thunberg has sailed across the North Atlantic and travelled by bicycle from city to city carrying her message, will she get back on her boat and sail home? What a great example this will be.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

doctrine said:


> So now that Greta Thunberg has sailed across the North Atlantic and travelled by bicycle from city to city carrying her message, will she get back on her boat and sail home? What a great example this will be.


A crew was *flown *from Europe to NY to sail the boat back. So no.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Prairie Guy said:


> Electric vehicles have been around just as long as ICE vehicles. If they were economically viable they wouldn't have to be subsidized.


I totally agree vis-a-vis electric car subsidies. I am super glad that Ontario axed them and I am only sorry they were not able to follow through on their particular vindictiveness towards Tesla. That was a stupid move that likely cost us more in lawyers and settlements than it might have saved -- but I REALLY hated the idea of my tax money going to that charlatan Musk.

If we as a nation think that the economics should shift away from fossil fuels, then I believe a carbon tax is the way to do that. It should not be necessary to directly subsidize foreign manufacturers, especially ahead of competing local ones.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

sags said:


> It is well known the total emissions from people eating grains and fiber rich vegetables (beans) are higher than the total emissions from cow farts.
> 
> Save the planet.........eat more beef and less flatulence inducing grains and legumes.



Actually the cows burp more Methane than they fart, but I get your point..... slaughtered and butchered cows produce no Methane.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

gardner said:


> I totally agree vis-a-vis electric car subsidies.


I think the largest subsidy of all is no road tax, carbon tax,municipal surcharges,transit levies yet on EV's...will be a different story once these cost are added as we need roads,power etc that drivers need to pay for.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Eder said:


> I think the largest subsidy of all is no road tax, carbon tax,municipal surcharges,transit levies yet on EV's...will be a different story once these cost are added as we need roads,power etc that drivers need to pay for.


Yes, an excellent point -- except on carbon tax -- the whole point is that they escape THAT.


----------



## condor (Jun 15, 2014)

Still...nobody with any kind of balls challenged me on that one issue...easier to go on silly rants rather than explain or challenge this silliness.

I have learned...the hard way...that this is not the forum for a serious debate...just everybody blowing smoke out their ***!!!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You got that right........climate change denying *** smokers.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I doubt there are any unintended consequences of the rallies.
> 
> The consequences are all intended.......more public awareness, political pressure on governments, and a show of unity around the world.


Public Awareness?
Really, people don't know about this?

It's really about political posturing and showing how great you are.
They're not actually working to fix the problem, they're just whining that things aren't perfect yet.

Honestly, I think it's great that we have created a society so prosperous that most people feel they can safely take it all for granted.
That is a remarkable achievement.

Unfortunately the corollary is that they take it for granted and fail to appreciate how truly good they have it.
That's a problem.


----------



## condor (Jun 15, 2014)

Saggbrain...with all your cocky remarks...take the challenge on the issue i stated...changing the channel is what you do best


Why in Gods name do people trying to find a solution to a problem that does not ...EXIST...why???


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Because it is there.........you just don't see it.


----------



## condor (Jun 15, 2014)

Saggybrain....then tell me what....YOU.....see that i dont!!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It


----------



## condor (Jun 15, 2014)

You are right...i now can finally see it too


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> You got that right........climate change denying *** smokers.


Climate change deniers simply don't exist in any appreciable numbers in Canada.

We all know that we're at the end of the last ice age.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

MrMatt said:


> Climate change deniers simply don't exist in any appreciable numbers in Canada.
> 
> We all know that we're at the end of the last ice age.


I don't know if we're anywhere near the end of the current ice age, but we are definitely on the warming side of an interglacial period. 

I was impressed with Mr Singh's platform announcement that money would be spent on mitigating the effects of climate change. This seems to me to be a far more practical approach than taxing energy, and then giving the money back. At least it addresses the fact that the climate will inevitably change, regardless of human activity.

Too bad voting wasn't more like ordering pizza. If we could only take individual items from all the party platforms and build our own. Although I like the climate mitigation, I'd gag on most of the rest of the NDP platform toppings.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Userkare said:


> MrMatt said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change deniers simply don't exist in any appreciable numbers in Canada.
> ...


Well if it was a sine wave, we could have a zero to determine which one we're in, suffice it to say that we're going from a cold period to a warm period. 
It's likely there are other factors. 
But nobody is denying that the climate is changing. 

That's the thing with the Liberals that annoys me the most, they lie and smear and confuse to push their agenda. It's so inherently dishonest.


----------



## condor (Jun 15, 2014)

This a great day....finally...effective today i stopped all mortgage payments...Visa payments and utilitie bills.After hearing...Greta...speak at UN...world will end at end of 2019...so i figured what is the point. I am now preparing mentally for the complete culling of 21 century capitalist who have destroyed this world. Just happy she never said end of Nov. 2019.
Indeed...we go no further....repent....repent or suffer the wrath of ...GRETA.....

PS.....is it true she walked over on water from Europe to North America...or is that Trump fake news......


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Congratulations condor!

I missed the end of days speech. There are now 3 people I change the channel on - their voices are too grating to endure. I read of their antics instead. Suzuki for years now, Trudeau since about SNC, and most recently, Greta the sad puppet.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Greta is the latest tactic by the alarmists...trot out a 16-year old girl (with autism or Asperger's?) who has no science background and then attack anyone that dares to question her prepared speeches.

It's child abuse.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It was a pretty powerful speech delivered impeccably and with such passion you could feel it.

A standing ovation by those in attendance, and they are not easily impressed. I believe they laughed at Donald Trump and didn't show up at all for Stephen Harper.

Stay tuned.........Greta will be a world leader some day.

"Let us sacrifice our today so that our children can have a better tomorrow".

A. P. J. Abdul Kalam


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

I'm not surprised sags.
You are undoubtedly the most unabashed kool aid drinker I've ever encountered.

May I suggest a new icon (avatar) for you: 









(source credit https://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=31408)


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> Stay tuned.........Greta will be a world leader some day.


Maybe, but do you think that the PR company that's behind her rise to fame is maybe taking away her childhood? What type of people are her parents. It seems inappropriately cruel to this little girl. She has a permanent scowl on her face. What has her education system done to her. Where is the funding coming from for this show?

We see this misguided indoctrination of more and more children into the global warming movement in our education system all the time. It's sad and misguided. It will be interesting to see what happens when all these children realize they've been duped.

ltr


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It would appear that I have lots of company on my side.

Latest CNN poll.........91% of Americans say climate change must be addressed now...........9% say there is still time.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Greta's speech..........emotional, powerful and leading the next generation's demands for immediate action.

_"My message is that we'll be watching you.

"This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you!

"You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!

"For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you're doing enough, when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight.

"You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe.

"The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control.

"Fifty percent may be acceptable to you. But those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice. They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist.

"So a 50% risk is simply not acceptable to us — we who have to live with the consequences.

"To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise – the best odds given by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] – the world had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit back on Jan. 1st, 2018. Today that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatons.

"How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just 'business as usual' and some technical solutions? With today's emissions levels, that remaining CO2 budget will be entirely gone within less than 8 1/2 years.

"There will not be any solutions or plans presented in line with these figures here today, because these numbers are too uncomfortable. And you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is.

"You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you.

"We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not.

"Thank you."_


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> Greta's speech..........emotional, powerful and leading the next generation's demands for immediate action.


Not only has this poor girl been duped, but so have you.....sad

ltr


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

That wasn't Greta's speech...she never wrote a word of it and she doesn't understand what she's saying. Special interest groups are funding her world tour and she's just a pawn.


----------



## condor (Jun 15, 2014)

Saggybrain....please stop your ludicrous postings....we are trying very hard to have an intelligent conversation.

It would appear you have some sort of strange problem....the more people ridicule you...the more you post your silly comments.

I equate it to...its like throwing gas on the fire....sad.....very sad.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

I found an interesting link back when the cross-Atlantic trip was announced. I managed to find it again although it is obscure now that msm news is predicably reporting so much on her. I can't speak to the veracity of the link. I found it kind of disjointed and 'conspiracy-like'. But if accurate, her rise has been stage-handled from the beginning. 

According to the link, the first photos and reports of her lone Friday protests in Aug 2018 were posted to the twitter and facebook pages of 'We Don’t Have Time'. It's founder and CEO is Ingmar Rentzhog. The link then discusses Rentzhog's connections (incl. w Al Gore) to the 'climate change industrial machine' (my term).









_Mårten Thorslund, chief marketing and sustainability officer of We Don’t Have Time took many of the very first photos of Thunberg following the launch of her school strike on August 20, 2018. In the following instance, photos taken by Thorslund accompany the article written by David Olsson, chief operating officer of We Don’t Have Time, This 15-year-old Girl Breaks Swedish Law for the Climate, published August 23, 2018

Tagged in Rentzhog’s “lonely girl” tweet were five twitter accounts: Greta Thunberg, Zero Hour (youth movement), Jamie Margolin (the teenage founder of Zero Hour), Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project, and the People’s Climate Strike twitter account (in the identical font and aesthetics as 350.org). [These groups will be touched upon briefly later in this series.]

Rentzhog is the founder of Laika (a prominent Swedish communications consultancy firm providing services to the financial industry, recently acquired by FundByMe). He was appointed as chair of the think tank Global Utmaning (Global Challenge in English) on May 24, 2018, and serves on the board of FundedByMe. Rentzhog is a member of Al Gore’s Climate Reality Organization Leaders, where he is part of the European Climate Policy Task Force. He received his training in March 2017 by former US Vice President Al Gore in Denver, USA, and again in June 2018, in Berlin. Founded in 2006, Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project is a partner of We Don’t Have Time._

http://www.theartofannihilation.com...economy-of-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/

Enjoy the read...


----------



## Karlhungus (Oct 4, 2013)

"Science" has never been wrong before...
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Following up, I searched Ingmar Rentzhog's name and there is quite a bit relative to him & Thunberg. 

As the earlier article notes, he is clearly a 'for profit' climate activist much like Gore. His intent is to become the go-to climate internet site. "_The revenue model will resemble the social platform of TripAdvisor.com’s business model, which with its 390 million users annually generates over $ 1 billion in good profitability…We will work with strategic partners such as Climate Reality leaders, climate organizations, bloggers, influencers and leading experts in the field._”

He does have a foundation though which will receive at least 10% of the company's profits. Wow!

He has tried to backpedal from Thunberg though, after having her join 'we don't have time' as an adviser.  This link is his attempt to answer some of the questions that were raised.

Seems to me that at the very least that he was coaching and concurrently exploiting someone he knew could further the causeand profitability of his company. Perhaps merely an example of another dispicable 'disruptor'.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

It's hard to take seriously the message that her life has been ruined. Really? Norwegians are amongst both richest and happiest people in the world due to their enormous oil wealth and strong human rights. 

May as well cry a river of tears and sail your boat all the way to Syria and see what real suffering for children is.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Did people say her life was ruined? Most people called her a pawn.

If you're paying attention you would have noticed that many of the people who are telling us to take a 16-year old child seriously are also the same ones that are saying that 29-year old Justin Trudeau's blackface was a youthful indiscretion.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

When satire becomes life.....

*Nation Perplexed By 16-Year-Old Who Doesn’t Want World To End*

NEW YORK—Following her U.N. address about the existential threat posed by a rapidly warming planet, citizens across the United States confirmed Monday they were perplexed by Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old who apparently has no desire to see the world end. 

“I know she’s from another country, but she’s still a teenager, right?” said 33-year-old Sophia Williams of Kenosha, WI, her confusion reportedly shared by millions of Americans who recalled that during their own adolescence they had hated the world and everyone in it and had felt the end couldn’t come fast enough. 

“I don’t understand why a high school kid like her isn’t locking herself in her bedroom and writing bad poetry about how nothing matters and everything is meaningless. 

Instead of going around the world and giving speeches in which she urges people to save the planet, shouldn’t she be commiserating with her friends about how pointless life is and how we’d all be better off dead? I just don’t get it.” 

At press time, an online survey found that a majority of Americans agree someone should make sure Thunberg’s parents are aware of her unusual behavior in case she needs to seek help.

https://www.theonion.com/nation-perplexed-by-16-year-old-who-doesn-t-want-world-1838374925


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Opposition to Trudeau's legally binding targets grows:


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Climate pawn Greta has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. So now I guess they give them away for jetting around the world and reading prepared propaganda.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Just to chime in, you're wrong.




> The unintended consequences of the egotistical climate protesters
> Is more authoritative in your face in your wallet government.


The intended goal is an authoritarian world government. They've just hijacked "climate change" to accomplish it.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Ahh... so this "climate change" thing we're hearing about is just a ploy by the authoritarian world government to take over?

What a ridiculous comment MrMatt


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Ahh... so this "climate change" thing we're hearing about is just a ploy by the authoritarian world government to take over?
> 
> What a ridiculous comment MrMatt


That would be a ridiculous statement, which is why I didn't say that.

I said it is being used as a tool to achieve that objective.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> I said it is being used as a tool to achieve that objective.


Then, what is the objective of this world government? I'm trying to figure out how environmental protections factor into it.

Maybe you can just explain it in other terms. I really can't see how these pieces fit together, or even what a 'world government' is.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> That would be a ridiculous statement, which is why I didn't say that.
> 
> I said it is being used as a tool to achieve that objective.


It's never been about the climate...it's always been about control and power.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> Ahh... so this "climate change" thing we're hearing about is just a ploy by the authoritarian world government to take over?
> 
> What a ridiculous comment MrMatt


Right from the horse's mouth james:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

I hate it when mobile skips over your reply and you think it didn't take.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

I am beginning to believe that reducing carbon emissions is actually an unsolvable problem, practically speaking. There are actual solutions, but there is opposition to everything and most of the world simply doesn't care. 

Ironically, poorer countries will experience the most harm and have the least means to prevent side effects. However, they also care the least about the problem and continue to expand cheap fossil fuel use, build coal plants etc, to improve their quality of life.

First world countries, primarily in northern regions, actually have the most to gain, with increased growing seasons and moisture, and plenty of resources to counter negative effects such as rising sea levels. And people just won't give their wealth to other countries, not beyond a small %.

Unsolvable. The theory of doom.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

That's kind of the point.
The cost benefit isn't positive for anyone. 


Now the new argument is to sacrifice economic growth.

Economic growth is why so many people are coming out of poverty. 
Their solution, of course is to freeze economic growth and just redistribute everything.

If course "for climate change".
Climate and economic equality, not authoritarian communism.
I don't see how you can mix up those two. 

I think that's what scares politicians most about Brexit, a wealthy educated and informed population is refusing to be ruled by a foreign supergovernment, and the ruling elites don't like it. 

This is just the latest tool they are using for their power grab.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Governments which take measures against climate change (like Canadian Liberals) are not against economic growth. Not in the least. In fact this has been a very pro-growth government which has stimulated both industry and global trade.

There is nothing "communist" about enforcing regulations and costs/penalties for destructive behaviour. All advanced capitalist countries do this... there are fees or penalties for dumping waste, using fresh water, creating other hazards.

It's perfectly normal to have something like a carbon tax, or other form of economic penalty, for destructive emissions. Some of you guys are making very outlandish arguments about path to communism etc.... get real. MrMatt, you're excessively afraid of this.

There will be economic growth and activity even with tighter controls of carbon emissions, just as there has continued to be economic growth even after countries started enforcing pollution standards.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

I agree that many have laudable goals, and a strong authoritarian government, the type Trudeau and his ilk admire, is the easiest way to get them done. 
I even think many people are doing this for the right reasons. 
However if you are not afraid of authoritarian governments and letting them have control of every aspect of society, you desperately need to get educated.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I think you're the one who desperately needs to get educated. Or at least open your eyes and look at reality.

It was mainly Harper who brought in overhauls to law enforcement and spy agencies, using the terrorism excuse, creating far stronger steps towards authoritarian rule. Thanks to Harper, it's become normal for us to have secret courts, secret cases with the broad "national security" excuses by government for why they won't disclose evidence or hold hearings open to the public. Harper's years marked a significant decline in Canada's openness and transparency. He was the one, not Trudeau, who wanted to be "tough on crime" as an excuse to hand over excessive power to RCMP, CSIS, CSEC and other agents of the government.

MrMatt if you're concerned about authoritarianism then you can't possibly be happy with what Conservatives did under Harper. And Scheer still wants to be "tough on crime", which means that he wants to give even more power to federal authorities, police and surveillance agencies. The Conservatives want Canada to become a police state.

Down south, the Republicans keep working to turn the US into a police state as well. This is a common thread for conservatives in both the US & Canada, generally fans of authoritarian rule.

In recent years, it's been the Conservatives who have been the biggest supporters of increasing domestic surveillance and strong police powers. Scheer continues with the authoritarian agenda which started under Harper.

Trudeau actually repealed some of Harper's more blatant abuses, bringing back some of our standard Canadian values.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Low growth and poverty eradication requires wealth redistribution. 

The government will seize property and redistribute it. The major leftie parties are already calling for taxation of assets.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Yes we need proper oversight of security agencies. 
If you're going to compare records, Harper wasn't perfect, but I don't believe he handed over millions to a convicted terrorist.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> Yes we need proper oversight of security agencies.
> If you're going to compare records, Harper wasn't perfect, but I don't believe he handed over millions to a convicted terrorist.


You should be applauding Trudeau for his actions.

What Trudeau did was an act of government openness, an acknowledgement of mistakes. The Canadian government wronged Khadr, and paid a settlement penalty. This is the antithesis of an authoritarian government. Under Trudeau, this is a government that *respects* civil liberties and citizen rights & freedoms.

In case it's not obvious to you: authoritarian governments do not acknowledge that they violate civil liberties, and don't pay penalties to people they wronged.

Trudeau has been a protector of civil liberties. He's exactly the kind of guy you should want, to fight authoritarian developments in the world. I believe that after thinking about this a bit you will come around, and vote for Trudeau.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Today on the news, in response to the Conservative party claim that Canada contributes less than 2% of the total carbon, a climate alarmist pundit said that Canada only contributed 2% of the forces in WWII, so should we have just stayed home?

What a ridiculous analogy. When they start using idiotic logic like this, it does nothing to further their cause - kinda like trotting out a 16 year old Sweedish girl whose expertise starts and ends at holding a sign.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

james4beach said:


> Trudeau has been a protector of civil liberties. He's exactly the kind of guy you should want, to fight authoritarian developments in the world. I believe that after thinking about this a bit you will come around, and vote for Trudeau.


So why doesn't he outright say that he will fight to the last breath to overturn QC Bill 21? Because that might lose him votes in Quebec. His hold on power is far more important to him than anybody's civil liberty.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Userkare said:


> So why doesn't he outright say that he will fight to the last breath to overturn QC Bill 21? Because that might lose him votes in Quebec. His hold on power is far more important to him than anybody's civil liberty.


The QC matter is a tricky issue. I don't know what the federal authority is to overturn provincial legislation.

You can only judge a politician based on their track record. Since being elected, Trudeau has generally taken steps that have been good for personal rights & freedoms and have indicated a federal government that values civil liberties. He even did the right thing (Khadr settlement) when it was highly unpopular, because it was the *correct* thing for an honest government to do.

In comparison, Harper had a horrible track record, and Scheer has already made promises (like "tough on crime") which have a more authoritarian slant.

Therefore between the two major parties, the Liberals under Trudeau are clearly the preferred party for those who are concerned about authoritarian rule by government.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> Trudeau has been a protector of civil liberties. He's exactly the kind of guy you should want, to fight authoritarian developments in the world. I believe that after thinking about this a bit you will come around, and vote for Trudeau.


No, that isn't going to happen.



james4beach said:


> You should be applauding Trudeau for his actions.
> What Trudeau did was an act of government openness, an acknowledgement of mistakes. The Canadian government wronged Khadr, and paid a settlement penalty.


Yep, Trudeau never met an Islamic terrorist that he didn’t embrace, love and apologize to.



james4beach said:


> The Conservatives want Canada to become a police state.


 Canada enjoys fundamental rights as written in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You should read it. It sets out those rights and freedoms that Canadians believe are necessary in a free and democratic society. The Charter is one part of the Canadian Constitution. The Constitution is a set of laws containing the basic rules about how our country operates. For example, it states the powers of the federal, and provincial and territorial governments in Canada.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience,freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and other media of communication, freedom of peaceful assembly and so on, and so on.

Police states usually occur in long term dictatorships where there is no real vote. I just don't think Canada is quite there yet. Your claim is a ridiculous exaggeration.

ltr


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

like_to_retire said:


> Yep, Trudeau never met an Islamic terrorist that he didn’t embrace, love and apologize to.


Completely emotion-driven reaction.

Islamic terrorism is beside the point. Even if it was the biggest child molester Canada had ever seen, the government still can't violate their rights & freedoms under the law.

Even if it was a child-molesting, double-Islamic-Sikh terrorist who defecated on the flag in the town square, the government still can't violate civil liberties. The government is not above the law.

Emotionally-driven Conservatives can't understand this.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> Completely emotion-driven reaction.
> 
> Islamic terrorism is beside the point. Even if it was the biggest child molester Canada had ever seen, the government still can't violate their rights & freedoms under the law.
> 
> ...


And yet you think we're in a police state ignoring the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

ltr


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> You should be applauding Trudeau for his actions.
> 
> What Trudeau did was an act of government openness, an acknowledgement of mistakes. The Canadian government wronged Khadr, and paid a settlement penalty. This is the antithesis of an authoritarian government. Under Trudeau, this is a government that *respects* civil liberties and citizen rights & freedoms.
> 
> ...


He was found guilty of committing a serious crime.
There was no order or ruling necessitating any compensation. 
He just likes giving our money away.

Trudeau is trying to shut down freedom of expression.
He's actively blocking media, and bribing the rest.

He actually think it's the governments job to decide what we should be able to say, or read and listen too.

Trudeau is pretty much the exact opposite of who we want.


----------



## condor (Jun 15, 2014)

I would like to respond with an intelligent rebutal...but from the past posts about king...jt...it is pointless...very little thinking here...just the blindness who think giving terrorist 10 million...GOOD......peoplekind...GOOD...failed electral reform....GOOD....over budget....GOOD.....trip to India....GOOD.....intervering with criminal proceeding....GOOD......2 ethic breaches....GOOD......hiding information on Quebec mess....GOOD.....promising more campimg for kids in federal election....GOOD......carbon tax hurting struggling families.....GOOD......appearing as blackface....GOOD.....king jt lying when first asked about Quebec affair....GOOD.....being hyprocrite on major issues....GOOD.

When you have people standing up defending this king...well it speaks for itself as i can find no phrase or word to describe the...REVULSION...i feel.

Sad and dangerous times ahead for Canada....INDEED


----------



## condor (Jun 15, 2014)

FInally good news....the king party ust dropped 4 point in Ont 905 battleground....last week they were at...7....new results just released...dropped ..4 points.

There is truly a God....thank you.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

condor said:


> FInally good news....the king party ust dropped 4 point in Ont 905 battleground....last week they were at...7....new results just released...dropped ..4 points.
> 
> There is truly a God....thank you.


A third of the country still think he's the best option.


----------



## condor (Jun 15, 2014)

Holy cow Batman...how...how in the hell can you have support for this type of goverance...i can only surmise that this portionof society is...BRAIN DEAD...to see all of the items i listed .....how is this possible....completly baffled...like i said not a forum for intellight thought!!


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

*Trudeau announces that he's in favor of global warming!*

Today Trudeau announced a plan to fund underpriveledged ( whatever that means ) kids to visit our national and provincial parks to enjoy our beautiful lakes and rivers...

.... which were formed.....

.... wait for it.....

By glaciers melting due to global warming!!!

Maybe he should have promoted skiiing and ice skating instead?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

condor said:


> Holy cow Batman...how...how in the hell can you have support for this type of goverance...i can only surmise that this portionof society is...BRAIN DEAD...to see all of the items i listed .....how is this possible....completly baffled...like i said not a forum for intellight thought!!


No, it's because of the scary CPC agenda of ...
basically good governance and keeping election promises.

The the Scheer CPC isn't even Conservative.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The next generation of world leaders aren't interested in listening to the old excuses on climate change, immigration, gun laws, and wealth distribution anymore.

Combine the popularity of people advocating for a "sea change" in society.......from Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Greta Thunberg, AOC.....and it confirms the world is changing.

The general public has finally caught up with those who demand wholesale changes and the world will be a better place for it.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

sags said:


> The general public has finally caught up with those who demand wholesale changes


It will be interesting to learn what power the general public actually has over these issues. In most places, very little or none; China? None. India? A little, but not much. Russia? Probably none. Pakistan? Probably none. Personally, I think the super-pac system in the states will guarantee that the general public's interests will be subjugated to the interests of the large donors too. That leave what? Australia, Canada, Japan, Europe to fight the good fight alone? Good luck.

Personally, I have no doubt that climate change is real and no doubt that it is at least mostly caused by human activity. But I am under no illusions about our collective ability to pull our heads out of our *** either: I am 100% confident we will do nothing different, the problem will continue to get worse and future generations will have a major f**-up to deal with.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The next generation of world leaders aren't interested in listening to the old excuses on climate change, immigration, gun laws, and wealth distribution anymore.
> 
> Combine the popularity of people advocating for a "sea change" in society.......from Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Greta Thunberg, AOC.....and it confirms the world is changing.
> 
> The general public has finally caught up with those who demand wholesale changes and the world will be a better place for it.


The problem is that those proposing "wholesale changes" don't understand what they're messing with.
They're attacking freedom of speech, due process, justice, poverty eradication, and a high quality of life.

Don't they understand if they destroy the foundations of our society, we won't live in this wonderful world we live in?

For those who say the world today isn't great, I ask, what REAL world is better?
In thousands of years, this, modern western society, is the best we've been able to achieve.

We've suffered uncountable suffering for those trying to push "better" systems, that even in theory wouldn't work.

As far as the topics you list, lets take them one by one.
Climate change, we should work to mitigate it.
Immigration, we should continue to allow large amounts of immigration, however we have to ensure we have systems to support immigrants so they are successful in their new country.
Gun laws, we should enforce them. In Canada we don't allow loaded guns of any type in any city, or near any dwelling, or road. Plus you can't carry a loaded gun around either.

Wealth distribution, resources should be allocated for the maximum benefit of society as a whole, while ensuring basic needs are met. This should be done without depriving individuals of personal autonomy or the right to the fruits of their labour.

Interesting support for all 4 items are basic Conservative principles.
The Liberal position on climate change is "Tax people so we have lots of money for stuff"
Immigration "let them in, when they have any problems, call Canadians racist"
Gun laws "add more laws, but don't actually put people who break them in jail"
Wealth distribution "give it to us, we know how to spend it better than you"

I think the best one on wealth distribution is Trudeaus Camping plan. He doesn't understand what people need or want.
Families living in poverty don't have a weeks vacation to go camping, and they need food and shelter, not a $2k vacation. Plus you can get a nice family camping vacation, including food for less than $1k.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> Combine the popularity of people advocating for a "sea change" in society.......from Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Greta Thunberg, AOC.....and it confirms the world is changing.


Elizabeth Warren - pretended to be an Indian to get a diversity appointment. Also plagiarized recipes for a native cookbook
Sanders - communist leanings but is a millionaire with several homes. His wife managed to bankrupt a successful university and is under investigation
Greta - autistic child exploited by people who want to use climate as a tool to take away your rights
AOC - clueless and talentless. Tried pushing a $93 TRILLION "new green deal" that 0% of her party (Democrats) would go on record supporting.

And these are the people who sags idolizes and want in charge.

He also supports Trudeau.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Sanders is clearly not a communist. As you point out, he's quite wealthy. The tax on the ultra-wealthy he suggests only begins with net worth over $32 million and even then it's a tiny % of NW. It only becomes significant above $1 billion.

I think it's a good plan to raise significant tax revenue from the ultra wealthy, while it has no impact on most wealthy people. The only problem I see with it is enforcement. There's lots of public support for this kind of measure, and even some billionaires are stepping forward to endorse extra taxation.

Interestingly, I think it's coming to the US before Canada. In coming years, I think there will also be a push to increase capital gains taxes, which has been way too lenient on asset hoarders and high net worth families.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It is pretty clear the status quo is no longer acceptable to most people. The system is failing and needs to be replaced.

Elizabeth Warren has taken over the lead in the Iowa caucuses. People like that she has well thought out plans to change the system.

At this point I think she will likely be the Democratic nominee and will beat Trump easily, but we shall see.

Every system in history has fallen into decline and been replaced. The current system will be no different.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The irony here is that if there had been more equality along the way, these societal pressures would not have built up to this point. The situation we find ourselves in today is the result of extreme advantages for the ultra-wealthy, such as low corporate tax rates. The most recent of these advantages was due to QE and stimulus programs by central banks, which have benefitted asset owners (like equity investors) tremendously, while not benefitting workers or average citizens at all.

US Republicans, and Conservatives in Canada to a lesser extent, will continue to leverage hot button issues to manipulate the population into voting them in. I believe that the core issues for Republicans and Conservatives is maintaining the advantages of corporations and the ultra wealthy. It's all about money and keeping the wealthy satisfied.

I strongly suspect they are _feigning_ outrage about these other divisive issues like social liberalism, climate change, Alberta's oil patch, immigration, religion. While they may actually have a socially conservative slant, I really don't think the wealthy backers of the Republicans & Conservatives really care about these topics. They don't care about religion. But they whip up emotion in other people, and I think it's the current method to manipulate the voting public.

The game plan is to manipulate voters, like those at CMF, into being outraged at out-of-control liberalism, gender/identity, etc (that's the *hook*) in order to support the parties and win votes. The real goal is to maintain the advantages of the large corporations and the extremely wealthy.

You can't win votes by saying "we're going to make sure large corporations and the extremely wealthy get to keep all their advantages". Doesn't work. Instead, you feign outrage about various issues, whine a lot, and try to strike a nerve among your voter base that will motivate them to vote for you. The billionaire who runs the USA does a good job with this, while he passes legislation to further enrich his circles.

The real agenda is hidden. It's highly dishonest, but that's the right wing playbook. Many CMF'ers are being played.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I agree. Those who benefited the most got greedy and screwed up a good thing. It happens all the time.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

The idea that CMF voters are being influenced by a conservative conspiracy intent on protecting the ultra wealthy is quite interesting. How many people in the conservative party war room are dedicated to this site do you think?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

doctrine said:


> The idea that CMF voters are being influenced by a conservative conspiracy intent on protecting the ultra wealthy is quite interesting. How many people in the conservative party war room are dedicated to this site do you think?


It's not a conspiracy; the party doesn't hide its intent to pass legislation that maximizes benefits to corporations and the very wealthy.

The party also doesn't hide the fact that they will do whatever the large Canadian energy corporations want them to do. They serve the oil & gas companies, clearly.

What Conservative leadership does hide, however, is the fact that these other "outrages" are just a hook to engage voters. Nobody specifically targets CMF. We just see a sample from the broad population here. Notice, in particular, the emotion and anger from some of the Conservative voters... I think that's a good illustration of them adopting the "outrage" of various topics which have been designed to motivate them.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Conservatives reveal their priorities in their election platform.

An energy corridor........an idea that has been thrashed around for a long time and already studied by Senate committees. 

The difference with the Conservative plan over previous plans are that they will implement eminent domain to seize the land necessary to build the corridor. They pledge to remove the responsibility of companies to negotiate with landowners which they claim will pave the way for the project to go forward.

They would implement the same strategy for other pipelines of pushing them through regardless of concerns from stakeholders.

Tax cuts from the Conservatives invariably create the highest savings for the highest earners. From TFSA increases to contribution limits to broad based tax cuts to everyone are examples. While everyone benefits from lower taxes, the Conservative cuts benefit the higher earners the most.

Conservatives continually pledge to cut spending, but never say which programs or spending they will cut. Invariably it is programs and services for low income people.

Sports credits for 2 kids benefit parents who can afford to have their kids in expensive sports.

A climate change plan that doesn't address the problem but relies on technology that doesn't exist and the goodwill of corporations isn't much of a plan.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The momentum on climate change efforts is snowballing. 

I don't think countries will be able to ignore the cost of mitigation anymore and they will have to admit that climate change is real and is going to cost a fortune to keep up with the damage.

Taxes are going to increase to pay for it. No doubt about it. Either a carbon tax or a tax by another name is guaranteed. The money has to come from somewhere.

It is the old saying........you can pay now or pay later, but you will pay.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

james4beach said:


> What Conservative leadership does hide, however, is the fact that these other "outrages" are just a hook to engage voters. Nobody specifically targets CMF. We just see a sample from the broad population here. Notice, in particular, the emotion and anger from some of the Conservative voters... I think that's a good illustration of them adopting the "outrage" of various topics which have been designed to motivate them.


Thanks James. This post of your now explains to me why you can be so logical and inquisitive on many topics and yet are so "out to lunch" on politics. I have kept you off my ignore list until now but I realize that you belong there with sags.


----------



## hboy54 (Sep 16, 2016)

kcowan said:


> Thanks James. This post of your now explains to me why you can be so logical and inquisitive on many topics and yet are so "out to lunch" on politics. I have kept you off my ignore list until now but I realize that you belong there with sags.


Sags and James are the founding members of my ignore list circa a week ago.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

sags said:


> I don't think countries will be able to ignore the cost of mitigation anymore and they will have to admit that climate change is real and is going to cost a fortune to keep up with the damage.
> 
> Taxes are going to increase to pay for it. No doubt about it. Either a carbon tax or a tax by another name is guaranteed. The money has to come from somewhere.
> 
> It is the old saying........you can pay now or pay later, but you will pay.


I agree; the changing climate will definitely cause massive expenses for countries that are most affected. When the ice melted imultiple times in the past, there were no cities, no billions of people crowded along the coasts. Then when the glaciers last advanced, maybe the Neanderthals were extincted; we can't be sure, there's no written record of it, and they weren't really missed at the time. If either of those conditions were to occur in modern times, it would be far beyond catastrophic; I don't know if there's even a single word to describe it. Given the choice between the two, though, I choose warming, thanks.

Where I disagree, is that people believe if we convert all our energy use to non CO2 emitting sources, the Earth will stay exactly as it is... we will have defeated climate change. No serious scientest would ever say that; it is inevitable that the Earth's climate will change. 

I think politicians know this as well, but politicians think in terms of 4 years. They have to appease Greta and the masses who demand action in order for them to be elected. They come up with 'plans' to show that they're addressing the issue. A carbon tax is supposed to cause people to use less fossil fuel by making it more expensive. The politicians know that it's political suicide to make everything more expensive, so they come up with the brilliant idea to give the money back. This is their idea of 'doing something'? It reminds me of the whole recycling fiasco. Cities distributed different coloured boxes so that people would sort their garbage to be recycled. They contracted with private companies to pick up and process the recycleable materials; millions of dollars a year are spent. Everybody felt good that we were doing something. Now we learn that about only 10% actually gets recycled, and a lot ends up being shipped to 3rd World countries to be burned in open pits.

I don't think the problem can be solved without massive global effort to prepare to relocate billions of people, to block further development in flood-prone areas, to force any development over wetlands to provide man-made lakes to buffer the flow of surface water, instead of big drain sewers to get it quickly into rivers. That's just a start, but does anyone seriously believe that a global concensus can be reached; or even at a local municipal level? 

I think that when the poo hits the fan, it will be every man ( or country ) to himself. It won't be pretty!


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

hboy54 said:


> Sags and James are the founding members of my ignore list circa a week ago.


Sounds like hboy and kcowan have gone looking for their own "safe space"... lol. I thought you conservatives were supposed to be tough people who can handle real talk.

Insulating yourself from views you don't agree with is a great way to put yourself into an echo chamber. This is how we end up with conservatives and liberals who both live in their own worlds, disconnected from reality.

Thankfully I constantly hear conservative views from people I work with, and from CMF, which gives me a better picture of the world.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> Thankfully I constantly hear conservative views from people I work with, and from CMF, which gives me a better picture of the world.


hehe , you know it's exactly what went through my mind too. I don't agree with all this 'ignore list' stuff. I'd rather read what you liberals think. Sort of a 'know thine enemy' thing. I really am interested in what the left thinks, because it's fascinating. I may not agree, but it's still fascinating.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The momentum on climate change efforts is snowballing.
> 
> I don't think countries will be able to ignore the cost of mitigation anymore and they will have to admit that climate change is real and is going to cost a fortune to keep up with the damage.
> 
> ...


Exactly, so lets get ready for it.

As far as I know, Canada isn't expected to have much for climate change costs beyond defending our borders.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Not much climate change costs?? Canada is feeling significant impacts already, and we haven't even started to tackle these problems.

Arctic: melting permafrost will make communities inaccessible, add to transportation and shipping costs. Roads and infrastructure will have to be totally rebuilt. Animal patterns change, meaning loss of hunting or big changes in hunting lifestyle for inhabitants.

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/cli...ic-and-threatening-the-way-of-life-for-inuit/

Coastal areas: we have a lot of coastline and just as with every other country, we're going to have rising sea levels. This will force some people to move away from the coast (huge relocation and/or insurance costs) but will also change fishing patterns and industries.

I was just on the west coast a few days ago, and was talking with some researchers from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. I was watching them catch nets of fish as part of their species sampling studies. They told me that this particular part of the coast has recorded the warmest sustained water temperature in about 100 years. They also showed me a couple of the fish they caught that they said were never seen here until the last 10 years. This was in the US but the same effect is seen everywhere on the coasts.

This ^ particular location has local factors which contributed to that ~ 100 year high temperature, so this was a more extreme result than other coasts can see, but warming sea water trends are observed everywhere (including Canadian coasts)

But yeah, I get it. If you live in Alberta or somewhere inland, then it feels like climate change isn't a big deal. "What are all these people whining about?"


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

james4beach said:


> The party also doesn't hide the fact that they will do whatever the large Canadian energy corporations want them to do. They serve the oil & gas companies, clearly.


Can you provide a list of these things that the energy companies "wants the government to do", or, say, "let the companies do", that you find inadequate and objectionable? It must be a very small list, because I can assure you that everything that the energy companies "do" is heavily scrutinized, questioned, and restricted to ensure that environmental policies are adhered to and impacts are minimized and effectively mitigated...

There is also a constant lack of understanding among government staff regarding the operation of energy companies in general, often due to our scale and complexity of operations and often due to the constantly changing and innovative ways that energy companies go about meeting and exceeding all the environmental requirements bestowed upon them.

Believe it or not, people don't always arrive out of college on the government staff as fully informed and competent energy policy makers.. It takes many key and experienced people with years of (dreaded) "industry experience" to effectively understand what is going on. It takes (also dreaded, by you) "communication with industry stakeholders" to adequately understand the plans, abilities, and limitations of a mining or O&G operation.

Luckily, the truth of the matter speaks volumes, and it is so plainly clear to all Canadians that merely glances at the matter that what Canadian companies are up to is fully and completely sufficient from an environmental protections perspective, that rally organizers are now soliciting the aid of hysterical children to predict their early demise in a last ditch attempt to keep themselves relevant. 

Yes, the future is looking bright. Only, Canadians have grown rather tired of being dictated to by the likes of Swedish teens and constantly shouted down as being perpetually inadequate when we've already put such great and constant effort into improving the state of the environment for ourselves and the world as a whole. But worry not, we'll continue to lead and be an example to the world of responsible industry and responsible capitalism (as long as the left does not take more power), and no doubt will still be a great position of authority on the matter for centuries to come, so long as we still have the freedom to exist and speak.

I for one sleep extremely well at night knowing that I am at the forefront of creating one of the* best *energy source in the world, and that I get to contribute to such a great endeavor.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

peterk said:


> Luckily, the truth of the matter speaks volumes, and it is so plainly clear to all Canadians that merely glances at the matter that what Canadian companies are up to is fully and completely sufficient from an environmental protections perspective, that rally organizers are now soliciting the aid of hysterical children to predict their early demise in a last ditch attempt to keep themselves relevant.
> 
> Yes, the future is looking bright. Only, Canadians have grown rather tired of being dictated to by the likes of Swedish teens and constantly shouted down as being perpetually inadequate when we've already put such great and constant effort into improving the state of the environment for ourselves and the world as a whole. But worry not, we'll continue to lead and be an example to the world of responsible industry and responsible capitalism (as long as the left does not take more power), and no doubt will still be a great position of authority on the matter for centuries to come, so long as we still have the freedom to exist and speak.
> 
> I for one sleep extremely well at night knowing that I am at the forefront of creating one of the* best *energy source in the world, and that I get to contribute to such a great endeavor.


Such a great post peter.... +1

ltr


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> Not much climate change costs?? Canada is feeling significant impacts already, and we haven't even started to tackle these problems.
> 
> Arctic: melting permafrost will make communities inaccessible, add to transportation and shipping costs. Roads and infrastructure will have to be totally rebuilt. Animal patterns change, meaning loss of hunting or big changes in hunting lifestyle for inhabitants.
> 
> Coastal areas: we have a lot of coastline and just as with every other country, we're going to have rising sea levels. This will force some people to move away from the coast (huge relocation and/or insurance costs) but will also change fishing patterns and industries.


So you agree that the most important path forward is to come up with solutions to these problems caused by climate change?

We already know that reducing CO2 to zero doesn't stop climate change. No serious scientist would disagree, so we have to adapt. This is one of the top points in Maxime Bernier's platform. He wants to reject alarmism and focus on concrete improvements. I totally agree and I'm glad we both agree on this. They have to stop silly taxes that harm the economy and ultimately do nothing for climate change or to help the people you have mentioned in your post. Let's get behind focusing on concrete improvements.

ltr


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

It's easy to start identifying with your industry or profession. Growing to love the camaraderie and shared experience is natural. But be careful, it can also lead to group think and even becoming a cheerleader for the industry, and the corporations you work for. Here are CMF, we have a large number of O&G workers and they obviously have a fondness of their industry.

In my opinion, what's much more challenging in life is to maintain a healthy separation between your individual life and your career. I would actually challenge oil & gas workers to be brave, independent thinkers: be critical of your industry. Strive to develop your own opinions.

I live the same experience as well. I've been working for the military-industrial complex (defense industry), surrounded by very conservative people and many who enjoy warfare and weapons. I even meet quite a few warmongers in this industry, people who would happily see new wars, because it's good for profits and personal enrichment. Being inside the industry, I can see many of its flaws and horrible practices. I am highly critical of the industry which employs me, and highly critical of the companies.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

like_to_retire said:


> So you agree that the most important path forward is to come up with solutions to these problems caused by climate change?


Finding technical and policy solutions to these problems is tremendously important, yes



> We already know that reducing CO2 to zero doesn't stop climate change. No serious scientist would disagree, so we have to adapt.


Strong disagreement with your logic here. When you discover that you are doing something that causes harm, you have to stop doing that thing. For example, if dumping sewage into a river is ruining the river, then you have to stop dumping sewage. Yes *it may take 100 years* for the river to clean out. But you still must stop the harmful activity... even if you won't see the benefit in your life time.

It's completely irresponsible to just continue doing the harmful thing at full pace, as if nothing happened. You are only making the long term picture worse.

Just saying "we'll have to adapt, can't stop this, oh well" is an extremely lazy response. This is why younger citizens are angry with Baby Boomers. I think the anger is justified.

Reducing human caused CO2 emissions is the right thing to do. Perhaps you and I will be long dead before the benefit is seen, but the benefits will be seen by future generations. Adding carbon taxes, strengthening environmental regulation, and putting more restrictions on the oil & gas sector is absolutely necessary.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> Strong disagreement with your logic here. When you discover that you are doing something that causes harm, you have to stop doing that thing.


Wait a second. 

I said, "_We already know that reducing CO2 to *zero* doesn't stop climate change. No serious scientist would disagree, so we have to adapt._". That meets your criteria of _"stop doing that thing"_. I repeat, We reduce CO2 to zero. Great. Surely you don't think that will stop climate change that has been going on for 4.5 billion years? All scientists agree on this.

Now, let's adapt. This is the essence of Bernier's platform that is distasteful to you for some reason. Instead you want to _put more restrictions on the oil & gas sector_ as this is absolutely necessary. Really? The oil and gas sector have done a yoeman's duty already to reduce pollution and you want more so they're not profitable. Why not concentrate on adapting to climate change?

ltr


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> It's easy to start identifying with your industry or profession. Growing to love the camaraderie and shared experience is natural. But be careful, it can also lead to group think and even becoming a cheerleader for the industry, and the corporations you work for. Here are CMF, we have a large number of O&G workers and they obviously have a fondness of their industry.


I don't think so, you keep saying things like I'm some sort of gun totin Alberta oil baron.
While you claim you work on a lot of military stuff with warmongers.

Since you're not a right wing warmonger, and I'm not in Alberta oil, I doubt your premise.


Back to the costs of mitigation, they are required, and quite honestly we should start with mitigation now.
Start building the northern infrastructure.

Develop the plan to abandon low lying areas.
Ie discourage development, and force buyers to agree to waivers. Let them know in 50 years, they will not get a government bailout.
Or start to charge fees to cover this expected cost, that's what insurance does.

The thing is the Liberals for all their climate change alarmism aren't putting forth real policies to deal with the coming problems.
Even if Canada were to stop all CO2 emissions today, we would still have to deal with these problems.

The deniers holding out the faint hope the rest of the world will suddenly change are what we need to worry about it.
Trudeau is pushing this agenda that if we just make a few small changes all will be good.
He's denying the reality of climate change.

Oh, are you going to ever list the climate change deniers here? I gave 5 who believe in climate change, and I haven't heard of a single denier being mentioned (and no new troll accounts wiht <100 posts)


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

james4beach said:


> It's easy to start identifying with your industry or profession. Growing to love the camaraderie and shared experience is natural. But be careful, it can also lead to group think and even becoming a cheerleader for the industry, and the corporations you work for. Here are CMF, we have a large number of O&G workers and they obviously have a fondness of their industry.
> 
> In my opinion, what's much more challenging in life is to maintain a healthy separation between your individual life and your career. I would actually challenge oil & gas workers to be brave, independent thinkers: be critical of your industry. Strive to develop your own opinions.
> 
> I live the same experience as well. I've been working for the military-industrial complex (defense industry), surrounded by very conservative people and many who enjoy warfare and weapons. I even meet quite a few warmongers in this industry, people who would happily see new wars, because it's good for profits and personal enrichment. Being inside the industry, I can see many of its flaws and horrible practices. I am highly critical of the industry which employs me, and highly critical of the companies.


I agree, it is a very common thing, and *easily happens*, as you say. Would you encourage Greta Thurnberg to be critical of the youth activist groups and NGOs she has surrounded herself with? Would you encourage university professors and IPCC consultants to be critical of their colleagues and managers? Please, do go tell them that (with actual communications, as you do so bravely with us unhealthily separated O&G workers, everyday). There is ample evidence that being critical within the field of IPCC consultancy, CC academic research, and policy advising is disallowed, severely so. You should be a prominent warning voice to this obvious and concerning influence James, with such great and similar examples drawn from your experience in the military industrial complex. Weird you haven't made that easy comparison yet, as you seem to be very skeptical of large organizational structures and their ability to resist corruption (a valid worry). Maybe someday you'll turn your questioning mind around on this subject and it's basic assumptions about what is and isn't bad for the environment.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

What do any of the complaints against Greta Thunberg have to do with climate change ?

The words "serious scientists" are tossed around by people who refuse to accept the overwhelming conclusion of global scientists in the IPCC reports.

The plan seems to be that if we can't attack the actual evidence we will attack the presenter of the evidence.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

james4beach said:


> Finding technical and policy solutions to these problems is tremendously important, yes
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bad example.

The right amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is "some". The right amount sewage in the river is ZERO.

A more apt analogy/question, one that accurately represents the CC situation, would be "how many plants should be growing in the river?" Obviously not zero plants, and one might even be inclined to believe that more plants in the river is a good thing (as one might be inclined to think that more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing for the environment), but clearly there is some amount of plants in the river that is too much for it to handle. That number is plants is highly subjective.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Speaking of unintended consequences, how about a few good ones? Here are 3.

Opening of the Northwest Passage to commercial shipping. This would cut thousands of miles off the trip from China or Japan to the east coast of north America, and Europe. Resulting in huge reduction in fuel use by container ships and savings of millions to consumers.

Opening of the arctic to oil well drilling. We know the oil is there but up until now it was too difficult to get at. Since the Alaska reserves and North sea are running dry this giant oil field would come on line just in time.

There have been warming periods before. Every one coincided with increased population, increased prosperity, and progress in general. Cooling periods coincide with plagues, wars, starvation and falling population and prosperity.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Might as well give it up James.

You are debating with people who presume for some God given reason they know more than the experts who spent decades getting educated and working in the field.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> What do any of the complaints against Greta Thunberg have to do with climate change ?
> 
> The words "serious scientists" are tossed around by people who refuse to accept the overwhelming conclusion of global scientists in the IPCC reports.
> 
> The plan seems to be that if we can't attack the actual evidence we will attack the presenter of the evidence.


She is a poor young mentally ill girl who is being exploited.
Another one of those overly privileged people, travelling around the world, living it up, telling us we all should do better.

She rants against economic growth FFS, doesn't she realize there are still millions living in absolute poverty?
I'm talking real poverty, you know, not enough food, no clean water, easily treatable diseases running rampant. 

But no, she's zipping around the world in her racing yacht telling us we're all horrible people.

That's my problem, another out of touch rich elite lecturing us all on what we should be doing.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

So ignore Greta and pay attention to the tens of thousands of scientists who agree with her.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I am sure Greta is well aware of the poverty conditions around the world and also understands that climate change is going to make their lives much worse.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I am sure Greta is well aware of the poverty conditions around the world and also understands that climate change is going to make their lives much worse.


And freezing economic growth will make it even worse.
Particularly if we don't do anything about climate change.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

sags said:


> What do any of the complaints against Greta Thunberg have to do with climate change ?
> 
> The words "serious scientists" are tossed around by people who refuse to accept the overwhelming conclusion of global scientists in the IPCC reports.
> 
> The plan seems to be that if we can't attack the actual evidence we will attack the presenter of the evidence.


Who's complaining? Just pointing out that the use of children as a mouthpiece for your initiative is a sign of desperation. Sad. 

A more interesting question might be - Why would serious scientists with overwhelming conclusions and evidence need to solicit the voices of little girls to make their open-and-shut case for them? Are they incapable?

CFCs
DDT
Agent orange
Landfill Leeching
The invention of vaccines and antibiotics
Controlled burning
Wastewater treatment plants

Surely all these things needed decades-long campaigns costing billions to convince a skeptical public of the importance of the discoveries/inventions? No? Oh right, they were quickly and broadly adopted because they were compelling. Greta is not compelling. Climate change is not compelling. And even if it was, there are many other things we could "try" instead of impoverishing our nations up front with vastly more expensive energy production.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

I think E. Musk has the right idea.... get off this planet! Once established on Mars, then start planning for a move to maybe one of Saturn's moons. When the Sun goes Red Giant in 5 billion years, the 3 inner planets will be swallowed, Mars an oven, and those currently frozen outer worlds, maybe hospitable. 

Plan ahead; it's the only hope for humanity to survive.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

sags said:


> Might as well give it up James.
> 
> You are debating with people who presume for some God given reason they know more than the experts who spent decades getting educated and working in the field.


It's the other way around. I listened to dozens of experts on both sides of the question before making up my mind. I don't take scientific advice from politicians, or 16 year old school girls. I have discussed this question with different people, the most fanatical warmists know the least about climate change and only listen to the same few sources.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Dr. Tim Ball, PhD in climatology recently won a lawsuit against IPCC member Michael Mann. Let him explain the difference between science and politics, and why skepticism is justified and why some leading climate change advocates are not credible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e92U5HzBuLI&t=882s


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Dr. Ball has quite a history and not much of it is good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Ball

I think this part sums it up nicely...........

_In February, 2018 Andrew Weaver's defamation suit against Ball was dismissed completely. The judge noted that Ball's words "lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory" and concluded that the “article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science.* Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views*.._

In non legal terms.........the guy is a kook.

In the Michael Mann case, Ball was being sued by Mann for defamatory statements. It was Ball's lawyers who asked the case be dropped due to his poor health.

Ball has also made false claims about his education and credentials. He claimed to be the only climatologist in Canada saying he obtained a PHD at the University of Winnipeg. Records indicate the school didn't have a climatology department. In fact, Ball is a Professor of geography and has no education or research experience in the climate change field.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> Dr. Ball has quite a history and not much of it is good.


Mann is a proven fraud. That's all that really matters....we all know the left will defame anyone who dares to question them.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

As long as we are quoting Wikipedia - from the same page -

"Ball received a bachelor's degree with honors in geography from the University of Winnipeg in 1970, followed by an M.A. from the University of Manitoba in 1971 and a PhD in Geography with a specific focus on historical climatology from Queen Mary University of London in England in 1983."

To say he does not have a degree in climatology when he has a degree in Geography with a specific focus on historical climatology, is disingenuous. Same with saying Winnipeg does not have a climatology department when his study of historical climatology was at Queen Mary University in London.

Furthermore, he won the Mann case because Mann refused to provide evidence to back up his claims. In other words Mann started a fake lawsuit, ran it out as long as possible, then refused to show how he arrived at his climate claims.

If you insist on only listening to professors with a degree in climatology there goes your claim that 97% of scientist are in agreement about climate change since hardly any of them have such degrees. For that matter neither does Al Gore, David Suzuki, Greta Thunberg or 99.9% of climate change advocates.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

What a small world. I know Tim Ball's brother.


----------

