Climate change barbie

Commodity Marketing

Tools

Climate change barbie

Nov 4, 2017 | 13:54 31
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
For the scientific record CO2 is necessary for life but in excess, increases the greenhouse effect.

Therefore in excess it is considered a pollutant. Check out the Scientific American article on CO2.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-worst-climate-pollution-is-carbon-dioxide/

You guys are grasping at straws with your lame arguments.

Politicians are not the experts in climatology or climate change although there may be a climate scientist in politics somewhere.

In government they have scientific experts who draw on the current research. There are numerous Environment Canada climatologists or experts to advise the minister.

Some you guys need a lesson in how governments work.

OK, the govt has a bunch of qualified people giving the govt advice on policy.

So why has these EXPERTS been wrong on almost every prediction they made about global warming?

Look at this chart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes

There have been only two record extreme HIGH temps recorded in the US since 2000.
South Carolina and South Dakota

And there have been TWO record extreme COLD temps recorded since 2000.
Maine and Oklahoma.

Where is the dangerous global CO2 in those facts?

This in spite of the BS fact promoted by some alarmists that all of the years since 2000 have been the hottest years ever except for 1998.
How does your experts explain that?

And 1936 still holds the record for STILL having 13 record extreme high temps in one year.

That was before CO2 producing cars were wide spread and you had to be careful not to step in the exhaust. Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2017 | 16:13 32
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Good thing you have rebel media to tell you how to think. Kinda of explains a lot .

Since when is hypocrisy or double standards or political name calling news in politics? Almost every party has some example of it.

The focuss for many critics of Mckenna seems to be personal sexist attacks. Why focuss on the Minister personally when it is Liberal policy that you don't agree with.

stick to the issues, make your arguments and avoid the personal.
It's very simple, chucky boy. If Climate Barbie doesn't like being called names, then she should lead by example and quit calling others derisive names.. Apparently you have trouble understanding cause and effect, action and reaction.

Oh wait - that pretty well fits the Liberal way - trigger the cause and decry the effect when it doesn't fit your preconception.

Here's another little problem chucky - what good will it do to carbon tax ourselves into poverty when China's CO2 INCREASE is greater in a few days than Canada's reductions amount to in a year?

So you see, it's really not about reduction, it's all about wealth transfer.

Since you claim to want facts, let me give you an example - Ontario's cap and trade policy is tied to Quebec and California's carbon credits trading scheme.

Ontario will not see any monetary return from the deal for 3 years after entering into the agreement. Remember, cap and trade does not directly reduce CO2 emissions, it merely adds costs to those who cannot reduce their emissions.

It is going to cost Ontario $300,000,000.00 per year to purchase the necessary credits. So that's almost a billion dollars sucked out of our economy just to maintain the pretense that we are SAVING THE PLANET.

Oh, by the way, you might look at it as those despised transfer payments are funding our foul premier's dream of being the greenest place in the world!

Not really helping, but still a feel-good religion. So maybe we should be calling McKenna the "Climate Priessstessssss!"

Would that make you feel better chucky? LOL!
Last edited by burnt; Nov 4, 2017 at 17:31.
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2017 | 07:19 33 In Sask we are already paying a carbon tax that Wall stuck us with.a white elephant idea that cost the province dearly. Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2017 | 07:50 34 I like the picture at Halloween, climate crusader and spenderman . "LOOK IN THE AIR IT'S A BIRD ,IT'S A PLANE no wait its just a helicopter flying spenderman on taxpayers expense to a private island"
Last edited by mcfarms; Nov 5, 2017 at 07:52.
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2017 | 09:46 35
Quote Originally Posted by RWT101 View Post
Let's see now.

Gore is a LAWYER pushing AGW.

Suzuki is a FLY scientist pushing AGW.

McKenna is a LAWYER pushing AGW and BIG CARBON TAXES.

Can't see where any of them were trained in climatology or meteorology.

And all of them are FOS when it comes to AGW and the earth's thermodynamic system.

McKenna blew her qualifications for the job when she declared CO2 was a pollutant.

Only a scientifically illiterate person make a statement like that.
But, when someone such as Tim Ball shows evidence to the contrary of AGW, they are ridiculed as being not qualified, yet somehow, all these people listed, with no education on the subject, or even in science at all, are qualified. I'm confusede. Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2017 | 10:36 36 Checkout Wikipedia's take on Tim Ball. He is almost 80 years old now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball#Climate_change-related_activism

Read the following article on Tim Ball from the Globe and Mail 2006
Nurturing doubt about climate change is big business

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/incoming/nurturing-doubt-about-climate-change-is-big-business/article967272/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

"Few in the audience have any idea that Dr. Ball hasn't published on climate science in any peer-reviewed scientific journal in more than 14 years. They do not know that he has been paid to speak to federal MPs by a public-relations company that works for energy firms. Nor are they aware that his travel expenses are covered by a group supported by donors from the Alberta oil patch".

Tim Ball's resume and activism read like they are from big tobacco's playbook to deny smoking caused cancer.

All you need to do is create a little doubt in the minds of people that the science proving climate change is suspect. How many ordinary citizens have the ability or knowledge to know whether it is true or not?

Tim Ball can make public speeches where there is no climate scientists to challenge his mis-information and get away with it and sound convincing. But he has no credibility in the world of real climate change scientists.

Tim Ball is a political activist with close ties to the oil industry.
Last edited by chuckChuck; Nov 5, 2017 at 12:32.
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2017 | 10:59 37
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Checkout Wikipedia's take on Tim Ball. He is almost 80 years old now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball#Climate_change-related_activism

He was never a climatologist. Has a Phd in Geography and hasn't published any peer reviewed research on climate change since 1993.

Read the following article on Tim Ball from the Globe and Mail 2006
Nurturing doubt about climate change is big business

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/incoming/nurturing-doubt-about-climate-change-is-big-business/article967272/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

"Few in the audience have any idea that Dr. Ball hasn't published on climate science in any peer-reviewed scientific journal in more than 14 years. They do not know that he has been paid to speak to federal MPs by a public-relations company that works for energy firms. Nor are they aware that his travel expenses are covered by a group supported by donors from the Alberta oil patch".

Tim Ball's resume and activism read like they are from big tobacco's playbook to deny smoking caused cancer.

All you need to do is create a little doubt in the minds of people that the science proving climate change is suspect. How many ordinary citizens have the ability or knowledge to know whether it is true or not?

Tim Ball can make public speeches where there is no climate scientists to challenge his mis-information and get away with it and sound convincing. But he has no credibility in the world of real climate change scientists.

Tim Ball is a political activist with close ties to the oil industry.
yea too bad he didn't have the qualifications of al gore??? , suzuki degree in zoology??,mckenna , lawyer??? please give us a break . the big business is definitely on the climate change side . check out gore , suzuki net worth if you need convincing. oh and do you live in sask ? hows your global warming going ?? its 20 f@#king below here in the first days of november ??? but the inconvenient truths only pick out the hot days. oh and tim ball does have a PhD in climatology from Queen Mary University of London in England in 1983, for what its worth . Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2017 | 11:42 38 Not a good day for Freeland and Liberal government when she takes on a reporter over the term.
Getting on wrong side of reporters and media was part of Harper government downfall. Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2017 | 11:45 39
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Checkout Wikipedia's take on Tim Ball. He is almost 80 years old now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball#Climate_change-related_activism

He was never a climatologist.......
Beautiful, chucky, beautiful!

You illustrated AlbertaFarmer5's point beautifully! Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2017 | 11:59 40 Apology , it was McKenna, not Freeland. Reply With Quote
fjlip's Avatar Nov 5, 2017 | 12:35 41
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Good thing you have rebel media to tell you how to think. Kinda of explains a lot .

Since when is hypocrisy or double standards or political name calling news in politics? Almost every party has some example of it.

The focuss for many critics of Mckenna seems to be personal sexist attacks. Why focuss on the Minister personally when it is Liberal policy that you don't agree with.

stick to the issues, make your arguments and avoid the personal.
Those are excellent examples of double standards rampant in Liberals, Gov and media.
Why don't you comment on them CC?
You can't pick and chose, be consistant.

Oh ya, Suzuki is also 80, so what?
Last edited by fjlip; Nov 5, 2017 at 12:40.
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2017 | 12:45 42
Quote Originally Posted by burnt View Post
Beautiful, chucky, beautiful!

You illustrated AlbertaFarmer5's point beautifully!
Yes, thank you chuck for proving my point so eloquently save me a lot of effort. I knew I could count on you. And the worst part I don't think you even realize what you did Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2017 | 12:55 43 I stand by my point that Tim ball is closely aligned with the oil industry and is not independent enough to produce credible science. Plus his career as a scientists is basically in the past and over and now he would be considered a political activist on the issue.

You can list all the politicians and activists who believe in the science of human caused climate change or don't believe. Whether they have the qualifications of a climate scientist or not is not relevant if the majority of the current science done by current publishing scientists support human caused climate change. 97% is the figure most often used to support this claim.

If the science is wrong why isn't Andrew Sheer or Brad Wall standing up and saying the science is wrong? Because they can't. The science is pretty clear and they would look like fools.

Check out this link it details Tim Ball's connections and opinions.

"Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science"
https://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball

Tim ball is only one scientist among many. Where are all the other scientists who say that human caused climate change is not real? There are hundreds of climate change scientists and only a very small number share Tim Balls opinions.

My apologies I see Wikipedia credits him with having a degree in Climatology.

As I said before the climate change deniers are following big tobacco's play book with tobacco's denial that tobacco causes cancer. Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2017 | 13:24 44
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
I stand by my point that Tim ball is closely aligned with the oil industry and is not independent enough to produce credible science. Plus his career as a scientists is basically in the past and over and now he would be considered a political activist on the issue.

You can list all the politicians and activists who believe in the science of human caused climate change or don't believe. Whether they have the qualifications of a climate scientist or not is not relevant if the majority of the current science done by current publishing scientists support human caused climate change. 97% is the figure most often used to support this claim.

If the science is wrong why isn't Andrew Sheer or Brad Wall standing up and saying the science is wrong? Because they can't. The science is pretty clear and they would look like fools.

Check out this link it details Tim Ball's connections and opinions.

"Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science"
https://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball

Tim ball is only one scientist among many. Where are all the other scientists who say that human caused climate change is not real? There are hundreds of climate change scientists and only a very small number share Tim Balls opinions.

My apologies I see Wikipedia credits him with having a degree in Climatology.

As I said before the climate change deniers are following big tobacco's play book with tobacco's denial that tobacco causes cancer.
I think you missed the part about double standards which was the point we were trying to make. Instead you Resort to insulting Tim Ball and his credentials, further proving the double standard we are referring to. I used Tim Ball as the example because I know he is one of the lefts favorites to attempt to discredit. Never anything attempting to discredit his science, always personal.

And please quit bringing up the consensus idea nowhere in the scientific method does the word consensus appear. There used to be consensus among supposed it intellectuals that the sun rotate around the earth, That didn't make it any more true. Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2017 | 20:11 45 Chucky, your reference material uses the thoroughly discredited State Penn Prof Michael Mann as an authority.

Maybe you should look at his credentials before you throw stones.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/07/05/fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

The lying bastard wouldn't even give the court his data that he used to make the Hockey Stick graph because it was such an outright lie.

And he's only 1 of the many 97% hustlers that were cashing in the government grants gravy train with fake data.

AGW is the WORLD'S GREATEST HOAX.

And you Liberals fell for it, hook, line and sucker. Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 18:29 46 Our climate alarmist minister still seems to amaze us. You have to wonder about the values of someone who sends out messages like this:

Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 21:41 47 I guess McKenna saluting ISIS/Syria/Rebels is like her boss saluting Castro. Reply With Quote
fjlip's Avatar Nov 7, 2017 | 22:30 48
Quote Originally Posted by Oliver88 View Post
I guess McKenna saluting ISIS/Syria/Rebels is like her boss saluting Castro.
His papa Reply With Quote