Full text of Peter Mansbridge's interview with Stephen Harper
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
There it is again, MAY..... more speculation. PROVE the insinuation. PROVE that the methodology is inadequate. This is not different than someone saying that someone else MAY be a child molester. Didn't say they were, just said they MAY be one. Get it yet? Or are you too stupid?
what's this?now now, Colpy! You saw fit to reply to these following questions (that you quoted yourself), but you couldn't manage to squeak out any kind of an actual reply to the question concerning the basis for your acceptance of Harper's repeated statements that Canada's emissions have been falling... why so, Colpy? Again Colpy, "what's the basis for your acceptance of Harper's statement's".
nice deflection... you pretty much ignored my complete post; this following post... where actual numbers are provided in regards the April 2014 report the Harper government provided to the UNFCCC. Yes, you clearly dodged the very pointed question I put to you; again, that same question you're peeling away from: "What figures are you relying upon to so ConBot-like, be willing to simply accept Harper's repeated statements that Canada's emissions have been falling?"
since you're so willing to blindly accept Harper's unsubstantiated statements, repeated statements, that Canada's emissions have been falling... surely you can speak to why the Harper Conservative government refuses to release the 2013 emissions figures... refuses to account for why it refuses to release the 2013 emissions figures. Surely you must be able to speak to that, hey?
so even though:
What figures are you relying upon to so ConBot-like, be willing to simply accept Harper's repeated statements that Canada's emissions have been falling? When you see the relative emissions stability in those recent years (in the above graphic) and compare that to the fugitive emissions reference I provided, you should appreciate just how significant that fugitive emission under-reporting is... even without speaking to the B.C. provincial under-reporting, just at the federal level, again:
- there's a known problem with how Canada has been under-reporting it's fugitive emissions,
- the Harper government refuses to release the 2013 emission figures,
- the Harper government refuses to provide a reason on why it is delaying the release of the 2013 emission figures,
- you speak to "no new hard numbers" released... you acknowledge it
I'm the one misleading here? Purposely misleading in spite of the comprehensive references I've provided in regards fugitive emissions. Me? In April of 2014, the Harper government released the following report (as available on the UNFCCC website): Canada’s Sixth National Report on Climate Change 2014 ... even though it's released in 'mid 2014' it only includes data references to 2011, as this following graphic details: after the drop in emissions that all countries experienced in association with the recession, one could suggest there has been a "stable" leveling. And yet you suggest I'm misleading... purposely misleading? - the Harper government refuses to release the 2013 emission figures,
- the Harper government refuses to provide a reason on why it is delaying the release of the 2013 emission figures,
- you speak to "no new hard numbers" released... you acknowledge it
What figures are you relying upon to so ConBot-like, be willing to simply accept Harper's repeated statements that Canada's emissions have been falling? When you see the relative emissions stability in those recent years (in the above graphic) and compare that to the fugitive emissions reference I provided, you should appreciate just how significant that fugitive emission under-reporting is... even without speaking to the B.C. provincial under-reporting, just at the federal level, again:
- A close look at fugitive emissions at the national level reveals that Canada’s national methodological approach may also be inadequate. Given the national production of approximately 189 billion m3 of natural gas in 2011, the expected amount of methane released into the atmosphere should lie within 52 and 236 MtCO2eq according to the recent findings. The reported amount of fugitive natural gas emissions is, however, 24 MtCO2eq, less than 50% of the low-end of the range
Once again, you're sealing with that reading comprehension thing. BTW, I should have looked down the page, what you were talking about was obvious, I'm just tired.
Anyway, here is the quote in context:
You see, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, as I understand that you are handicapped in these areas.........if you were actually competent, I would have had to reply with a heading something like this:
Waldo flat out lies:
Which means I did not call you a liar, I called you incompetent.
Oh, and I accepted Harper's statement for the simple reason that there is no reason NOT to accept his statement.
Perhaps Waldo could explain how the libs did no wrong and why they do not govern anymore? Why are all the issues and problems with Natives, so called globull warming and pipelines being dealt with now instead of during the long period of liberal governance? Prove how good the libs are Waldo, or perhaps just keep on slagging the cons to attempt to escape the inevitable.
Something like homeopathic medicine salesmen who use a lot of may, could, possibly help when they talk about their products
Ever watch DR Oz?
Well, the Liberals did manage to bring us balanced budgets. It been so long since we've had one, I'm beginning to forget what one looks like. I seem to be the only conservative minded person on these forums that is bothered by that. I wonder why.
That is much easier to accomplish when there is no infrastructure spending going on... And that little thing called the global recession, might of had a teensy thing to do about it
You forgot to add the Liberal party in your list of excuses for the Conservative Party's failure to balance the budget
what's this?now now, Colpy! You saw fit to reply to these following questions (that you quoted yourself), but you couldn't manage to squeak out any kind of an actual reply to the question concerning the basis for your acceptance of Harper's repeated statements that Canada's emissions have been falling... why so, Colpy? Again Colpy, "what's the basis for your acceptance of Harper's statement's".
nice deflection... you pretty much ignored my complete post; this following post... where actual numbers are provided in regards the April 2014 report the Harper government provided to the UNFCCC. Yes, you clearly dodged the very pointed question I put to you; again, that same question you're peeling away from: "What figures are you relying upon to so ConBot-like, be willing to simply accept Harper's repeated statements that Canada's emissions have been falling?"
since you're so willing to blindly accept Harper's unsubstantiated statements, repeated statements, that Canada's emissions have been falling... surely you can speak to why the Harper Conservative government refuses to release the 2013 emissions figures... refuses to account for why it refuses to release the 2013 emissions figures. Surely you must be able to speak to that, hey?
so even though:- there's a known problem with how Canada has been under-reporting it's fugitive emissions,I'm the one misleading here? Purposely misleading in spite of the comprehensive references I've provided in regards fugitive emissions. Me? In April of 2014, the Harper government released the following report (as available on the UNFCCC website): Canada’s Sixth National Report on Climate Change 2014 ... even though it's released in 'mid 2014' it only includes data references to 2011, as this following graphic details: after the drop in emissions that all countries experienced in association with the recession, one could suggest there has been a "stable" leveling. And yet you suggest I'm misleading... purposely misleading?
- the Harper government refuses to release the 2013 emission figures,
- the Harper government refuses to provide a reason on why it is delaying the release of the 2013 emission figures,
- you speak to "no new hard numbers" released... you acknowledge it
What figures are you relying upon to so ConBot-like, be willing to simply accept Harper's repeated statements that Canada's emissions have been falling? When you see the relative emissions stability in those recent years (in the above graphic) and compare that to the fugitive emissions reference I provided, you should appreciate just how significant that fugitive emission under-reporting is... even without speaking to the B.C. provincial under-reporting, just at the federal level, again:- A close look at fugitive emissions at the national level reveals that Canada’s national methodological approach may also be inadequate. Given the national production of approximately 189 billion m3 of natural gas in 2011, the expected amount of methane released into the atmosphere should lie within 52 and 236 MtCO2eq according to the recent findings. The reported amount of fugitive natural gas emissions is, however, 24 MtCO2eq, less than 50% of the low-end of the range
Your own chart shows a downward trend since 2006. Therefore, Harpers statement is not a lie. Meanwhile, you keep throwing out speculation and billing it as fact. The problem for you, though, is that I and others here, are not as stupid as you and your buddies and prefer to see hard numbers rather than speculation and fear mongering.
Thanks... You did that for me.
So, how about it?... The global recession have anything to do with the issue or is Canada so self-contained that the global markets have zero impact on Canada?
Who said the global recession had no impact? Look, I get it. It's always somebody else's fault.
You proved his sources as being not worth the paper they are written on. Many times. That to waldo is accusing him of lying.
Wow, you are getting awfully desperate to having to resort to these wild diversions.
Guess that the question I asked initially really undermined your ideological ant-Harper position and punctuated the uselessness of your boy Trudeau
no that graph doesn't show a downward trend since 2006... I even gave eyeballer Colpy a visual aid to suggest otherwise... while also emphasizing the stupidity of trying to determine absolute emissions from that scale of a graph. It also appears you're a graph eyeballer... one who wants to absolutely avoid/distract from the other following graphic that I also put forward... the one released by the Harper government in April 2014 to the UNFCCC. You know, the one that essentially shows "stable emissions"... and by the strictest interpretation of those numbers, no "falling of emissions". And again, that falling of emissions that did occur reflects upon the recession (where all countries had reduced emissions until recovery from the recession).
so, let me ask you again (for at least the 3rd time)... What figures are you relying upon to so ConBot-like, be willing to simply accept Harper's repeated statements that Canada's emissions have been falling? And again... where's the 2013 emissions update Harper Conservatives refuse to release... where's the explanation from Harper Conservatives on why they are delaying the release of the 2013 emissions update?
notwithstanding your cya act for Harper and your doubting of the Climate Tracker report on Canada's reporting of fugitive emissions, Climate Tracker has a significantly held reputation... I provided a reference linking to the websites of all 3 organizations that collaborate to bring forward the Climate Tracker results/reports.
say it enough times to yourself and maybe even you might accept your own BS!
Don't be silly. I have no use for Trudeau. Like Harper, he does not value fiscal responsibility. Clearly you don't either.
taxi, you drive-by arteeest you... feel free to chime in with your own source that supports Harper's repeated claims that Canada's emissions have been falling. :mrgreen:
689 to 702... is what? :mrgreen: Damn, you are a ConBot!