Harper refusing to discuss climate change?


James_enviroman
#1
At the G20 Harper has made it clear that he won't make climate change a priority, despite pleas from UN secretary Ban Ki Moon. Also at a meeting with 100 youth conference at the G20, the question wasn't presented. Apparently one person wanted to discuss the topic of climate change and Harper had that person removed. Harper referred to the issue of climate change as "a sideshow".
I understand the economy is important, I get that. However, does that mean that you don't even address the subject of climate change as being relevant? It's time for Harper and the Conservatives to step for all Canadians for now and for the future. Instead, it looks like Harper has his head stuck in the Tar Sands.
 
darkbeaver
#2
Don't worry the climate will make itself a priority no matter what Steven Israel Harper wants to do.
 
gopher
#3

NASA: Easily the hottest April — and hottest Jan-April — in temperature record

Plus a new record 12-month global temperature, as predicted


http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/16/nasa-easily-the-hottest-january-and-hottest-jan-april-in-temperature-record/

Sounds VERY convincing.



 
Slim Chance
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by James_enviroman View Post

Apparently one person wanted to discuss the topic of climate change and Harper had that person removed.

One whole person, eh?.... How many were there to discuss the economy? I'm guessing that it was probably more than one.


Quote: Originally Posted by James_enviroman View Post

I understand the economy is important, I get that. However, does that mean that you don't even address the subject of climate change as being relevant?


Yes. It is irrelevant.
 
Avro
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Slim Chance View Post


Yes. It is irrelevant.

So the environment is irrelevant to the economy?

I'd love to see you explain that one.
 
Extrafire
#6
The environment is relevant. Climate change is relevant only so far as what will have to be done to adapt to changing conditions. But I doubt that's what James means.
 
Slim Chance
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

So the environment is irrelevant to the economy?

I'd love to see you explain that one.


The explanation is elementary my good man. I responded to this:

Quoting James_enviroman I understand the economy is important, I get that. However, does that mean that you don't even address the subject of climate change as being relevant?


 
AnnaG
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by James_enviroman View Post

At the G20 Harper has made it clear that he won't make climate change a priority, despite pleas from UN secretary Ban Ki Moon. Also at a meeting with 100 youth conference at the G20, the question wasn't presented. Apparently one person wanted to discuss the topic of climate change and Harper had that person removed. Harper referred to the issue of climate change as "a sideshow".
I understand the economy is important, I get that. However, does that mean that you don't even address the subject of climate change as being relevant? It's time for Harper and the Conservatives to step for all Canadians for now and for the future. Instead, it looks like Harper has his head stuck in the Tar Sands.

lol Science in general isn't interesting to Harpy.
 
AnnaG
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Slim Chance View Post

Yes. It is irrelevant.

The evidence indicates you are wrong. There are thousands of instances where companies and the environment would have been a lot better off if the company had been ecologically sensitive in the first place. In this immediate area, Celgar and Teck-Cominco's smelter have spent 100s of millions just cleaning up what messes they made and becoming more sensitive to their enivironments. The area around Trail, for sinstance doesn't look like a moonscape anymore. It actually has stuff growing around it.
Yeah, it's irrelevant alright ..... to ignorant people.
It's simple, be clean to begin with and you don't have to waste time and money cleaning up later.

But anyway, Harpy is only interested in the business aspect and doesn't seem to care much about Canadian advancements in tech and stuff.
 
SirJosephPorter
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire View Post

The environment is relevant. Climate change is relevant only so far as what will have to be done to adapt to changing conditions. But I doubt that's what James means.

Environment is relevant? Not to conservatives. I have not seen Republicans in USA or Conservatives here in Canada support even a single environmental initiative. They invariably come out on the side of Wall Street and the polluters.

Saying environment is relevant is simply a sound bite. After all who can be against clean environment? That would be against ending world hunger or against getting rid of small pox, malaria or typhoid.

But sound bites mean nothing. When a party or a philosophy (conservatism) invariably comes out in support of polluters, invariably opposes any initiative to better the environment, it can be safely said that conservatives and conservatism is viciously anti-environment, no matter what the sound bite.
 
lone wolf
#11
Hot air is something we all feel.... It's summer in May.
 
petros
#12
Quote:

Quoting Slim Chance

Yes. It is irrelevant.

90% of the planet's fish are long gone but......
 
AnnaG
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

Hot air is something we all feel.... It's summer in May.

Ah, that's what it was. I felt a short gust of fetid, hot air for a sec, too.
 
Slim Chance
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

90% of the planet's fish are long gone but......


But what?
 
AnnaG
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Slim Chance View Post

But what?

lmao You'd better draw him a picture, Pet. Otherwise he'll think it's part of a natural cycle that has nothing to do with humans.
 
Extrafire
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

Environment is relevant? Not to conservatives. I have not seen Republicans in USA or Conservatives here in Canada support even a single environmental initiative. They invariably come out on the side of Wall Street and the polluters.

Saying environment is relevant is simply a sound bite. After all who can be against clean environment? That would be against ending world hunger or against getting rid of small pox, malaria or typhoid.

But sound bites mean nothing. When a party or a philosophy (conservatism) invariably comes out in support of polluters, invariably opposes any initiative to better the environment, it can be safely said that conservatives and conservatism is viciously anti-environment, no matter what the sound bite.

I know you have to pretend that conservatives don't care about the environment, but that's the kind of BS you have to promote to support your political position. Conservatives are not at all anti environment, they're just opposed to the political initiatives that use phoney environmental causes to advance their agendas, which includes most campaigns by eviro groups which appear to be mostly about raising money for themselves from suckers like youl
 
MHz
#17
I wonder if some rich patron could bring a snow-making machine to the rallies, .... $1/ fluffy snowball, slush balls are $100 and $1,000 damage deposit and it comes with a person w/camera to record your every move. The fluffy ones also come in a 6pak.
 
SirJosephPorter
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire View Post

I know you have to pretend that conservatives don't care about the environment, but that's the kind of BS you have to promote to support your political position. Conservatives are not at all anti environment, they're just opposed to the political initiatives that use phoney environmental causes to advance their agendas, which includes most campaigns by eviro groups which appear to be mostly about raising money for themselves from suckers like youl

I see, so conservatives are not anti-environment, they simply oppose each and every environmental initiative proposed and invariably side with big business and with polluters. Is that it?
 
Slim Chance
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

I see, so conservatives are not anti-environment, they simply oppose each and every environmental initiative proposed and invariably side with big business and with polluters. Is that it?

No. You've got it all wrong.

Think of it this way; conservatives are the equivalent of a hockey-helmet and the liberal environmental eco-fascists are like the dumb brother that needs the hockey helmet to protect him from running head long into concrete walls.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#20
At forum Harper's backers edited out tough questions from students at a university.

Moderators skipped question on Gulf oil spill at Harper forum - The Globe and Mail

Tuesday, May 18, 2010 3:13 PM
Moderators skipped question
on Gulf oil spill at Harper forum


Jane Taber

Raimey Gallant is putting on the record the question she wanted to ask Stephen Harper at a G8/G20 forum Monday but couldn’t because of a process she believes was so stage-managed as to be insulting.

The 30-year-old student from Winnipeg’s Red River College wanted to talk to the Prime Minister about the environment. She wanted to ask about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and she even censored herself by making her question a little tamer in hopes it would be picked. It didn’t happen.

About 120 students from across Canada participated in the 45-minute session , which was moderated by Senator Mike Duffy, a former broadcaster. Not one question on the environment was asked and a question on the G8 maternal health initiative did not include any mention of safe access to abortion.

Rather, the majority of questions dealt with the economy and the post-recession recovery – an issue that Mr. Harper says is the focus of his caucus and cabinet. One student even asked Mr. Harper what he likes best about his job.

Anything beyond the economy, including issues frequently covered by the national media, is a “sideshow,” the Prime Minster said.

“The whole sideshow thing, I think that insulted me the most,” Ms. Raimey told The Globe today. “I was really upset by that. I find it extremely insulting because we are Canadians, too, and these issues are important to us. If our Prime Minister thinks they are sideshows – I mean this isn’t a government of one.”

And so what was to be a frank exchange of ideas between Canada’s next leaders backfired on the Prime Minister. The story that’s emerged from the session is one of tightly controlling the message as it seems the questions were submitted in advance to the Prime Minister’s Office. PMO officials, however, deny they rewrote or reworked the questions.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff jumped on this during his speech at a fundraising dinner in Toronto last night. “I ask you to dwell on this scene,” he said. “A prime minister of Canada not being able to have unscripted conversation with young Canadians. … Don’t you find it disappointing? I find it disappointing that the prime minister can’t meet Canadian young people and take unscripted questions.”

Calling the scene “pretty weird stuff,” Mr. Ignatieff said it goes to Mr. Harper’s character, who is “so insecure that he has to control everything including the unscripted encounter with his fellow citizens.”

Ms. Gallant, who concedes she is not a Conservative supporter, has been in Ottawa for several days as part of the G8/G20 National Youth Caucus. Like other participants, she was asked to submit questions last Friday for the Monday. Here’s what she proposed:

“In light of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and the reluctance of the companies involved to accept responsibility, what new control measures for oil drillers will the Canadian government put in place to reduce the risk of oil spills in Canadian waters, and ensure the continuance of our marine ecosystems and the sustainability of our fisheries?”

She said she tried to put an “economic slant” on it, hoping that it would be answered. But it wasn’t to be.

She wasn’t the only one disappointed, either. Two students interviewed by Le Devoir, who did not want their names used, told the Quebec newspaper the questions they posed to the Prime Minister were re-written by his team .
They pointed in particular to the lone question on maternal health. “The initial question included mention of abortion but it as rewritten to remove the controversial passage,” one of the students indicated, suggesting it was altered by the “people in Stephen Harper’s office.”

For her part, Ms. Raimey doesn’t believe questions were rewritten by PMO officials, but she does believe the Mr. Harper’s officials had the final word over which questions were asked. As a result, she says she doesn’t want to continue her involvement in the youth forum.

With a report from Liem Vu in Toronto
 
Slim Chance
#21
How many threads are you going to post this on?
 
SirJosephPorter
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Slim Chance View Post

No. You've got it all wrong.

Think of it this way; conservatives are the equivalent of a hockey-helmet and the liberal environmental eco-fascists are like the dumb brother that needs the hockey helmet to protect him from running head long into concrete walls.

I like to think of conservatives as stooges of big business and the religious right. Big business, Wall Street is viciously anti-environment (for financial reasons), so is religious right (for religious reasons). Both are important constituencies for the Conservatives. That is why conservatives invariably come down on the side of not doing anything to protect or to better the environment.
 
Slim Chance
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

I like to think of conservatives as stooges of big business and the religious right. Big business, Wall Street is viciously anti-environment (for financial reasons), so is religious right (for religious reasons). Both are important constituencies for the Conservatives. That is why conservatives invariably come down on the side of not doing anything to protect or to better the environment.

I hope that you're not upset, 'cause you sound upset.. I simply offered you the clarity that you requested.

BTW - You're still wrong.
 
SirJosephPorter
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Slim Chance View Post

I hope that you're not upset, 'cause you sound upset.. I simply offered you the clarity that you requested.

BTW - You're still wrong.

Why would I be upset? You are new to this forum, but for your information, I never ever get upset in the forum, I never lose my temper, that is the prerogative of conservatives here.

I have found that conservatives usually have a thin skin and get upset, start mouthing personal abuse, personal insults at the slightest provocation (or without provocation). But you will never see me upset.

Incidentally, what I said about Wall Street and religious right is well documented. Look at any major environmental initiative, and you will find Wall Street and Fundamentalist Christians adamantly opposed to it (and conservatives of course pander to both).
 
pezlops
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Slim Chance View Post

No. You've got it all wrong.

Think of it this way; conservatives are the equivalent of a hockey-helmet and the liberal environmental eco-fascists are like the dumb brother that needs the hockey helmet to protect him from running head long into concrete walls.

With the liberal elitist it is always do what I say, not what I do.

It is like what liberal countries are trying to do right now by imposing a banking tax. Or Greece taking bailouts and still wanting to eat not only their cake but yours too. It is a dangerous enviroment for someone to say no to someone like Al gore or Suzuki (who wants to put in jail anyone who disagrees with him).
Throwing good money after bad money appeases liberal guilt.
 
Slim Chance
#26
Pezlops;

That is perhaps one of the more concise and accurate descriptions i have encountered.

The example of Greece is spot-on... Sadly, it appears that the liberal faction in Canada (and the US) are of the same mind as the Greeks. The culture of entitlement pervades that group not unlike the way that cancer consumes its host.

Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

Why would I be upset? You are new to this forum, but for your information, I never ever get upset in the forum, I never lose my temper, that is the prerogative of conservatives here.

I have found that conservatives usually have a thin skin and get upset, start mouthing personal abuse, personal insults at the slightest provocation (or without provocation). But you will never see me upset.

Incidentally, what I said about Wall Street and religious right is well documented. Look at any major environmental initiative, and you will find Wall Street and Fundamentalist Christians adamantly opposed to it (and conservatives of course pander to both).


You haven't been wearing your hockey helmet lately, have you?

BTW - Got a link to the "well documented research"?
 
AnnaG
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

Incidentally, what I said about Wall Street and religious right is well documented. Look at any major environmental initiative, and you will find Wall Street and Fundamentalist Christians adamantly opposed to it (and conservatives of course pander to both).

Really? Your idol, Obama must be one of those right-wing Fundamentalist Wall St. Christians, I guess.


Ocean’s public enemy #1... President Obama - Greenpeace USA Blog
 
Walter
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Slim Chance View Post

Pezlops;

That is perhaps one of the more concise and accurate descriptions i have encountered.

The example of Greece is spot-on... Sadly, it appears that the liberal faction in Canada (and the US) are of the same mind as the Greeks. The culture of entitlement pervades that group not unlike the way that cancer consumes its host.




You haven't been wearing your hockey helmet lately, have you?

BTW - Got a link to the "well documented research"?

Slim, you'll learn to put certain posters on ignore. Your life is too short to waste reading their drivel.
 
Extrafire
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

I see, so conservatives are not anti-environment, they simply oppose each and every environmental initiative proposed and invariably side with big business and with polluters. Is that it?

Not at all. As usual you've twisted things to fit the fantasy world you live in. We've been through this one before on another thread, if you'll recall. That's where you had to go so far as to unilaterally re-define the meaning of the word "environmental" to exclude anything that had an effect on human health. We all had a good laugh at the lengths you will go to in order to maintain your self delusion.

I see no point in going any farther on this with you, so make up whatever you want. It's always good for a laugh.

Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

Why would I be upset? You are new to this forum, but for your information, I never ever get upset in the forum, I never lose my temper, that is the prerogative of conservatives here.

Oh my, that's funny. Aren't you the guy who was so upset a while back he was threatening legal action? The same guy who gets so upset he goes off in a huff and refuses to debate with those who best him?
 
tay
#30

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is hosting a major climate summit in New York on September 23, 2014, “to mobilize political will” towards reducing global emissions.

U.S. President Barack Obama will be attending, as will U.K. Prime Minster David Cameron.

In fact, 125 heads of state will be there.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, however, will not.




https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/cana...183946998.html





 

Similar Threads

29
Climate Change
by Gonzo | Oct 24th, 2005