Premier Brad Wall criticized on climate science stance
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
0.1 degree is significant? Only in your delusional world. LOL
I have some potential waterfront property for ya in central Florida. You'll make a mint when sea level rises and it becomes waterfront in a few thousand years, maybe a few million but it's still a good investment. :roll:
0.8% of any population are more than likely from the 3% that tweek out and yell at lamp posts and can't see or hear trains coming.
And fall within the overall 10% with a mental health disorder.
Nobody fork over any cash for this scam. It will be exposed soon enough. Video at link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/donald-trump-global-warming-energy-policy.html?_r=0
Donald Trump’s Energy Plan: More Fossil Fuels and Fewer Rules
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/donald-trump-global-warming-energy-policy.html?_r=0
Donald Trump’s Energy Plan: More Fossil Fuels and Fewer Rules
Unfortunately, Mark Bigland-Pritchard appears unable to comprehend the fact that Brad Wall was referring to the Leap Manifesto, not to climate science overall. Either that or he's being intentionally disingenuous. Hard to imagine an enviro-activist playing those games, I know...
Because the carbon tax is involved in the climate change debate. Why shouldn't robbery be exposed? Trump can do in a day what it would take JT a year to do just because the US has a bigger international voice than Canada does.
Nah.
The intention is clearly based on his position in general even if he did reference Leap.
He's done multiple interviews about his belligerent opposition to the prevailing rationale on carbon pricing.
Justin Fisher of Climate Justice Saskatoon has himself stated the comment was in regard to the Leap Manifesto...the intent of his position is even clear to the members of CJS.
What does his opposition to carbon pricing have to do with his calling the Leap Manifesto misguided? They're separate issues altogether and conflating the two is simply a poor attempt at trying to lend credence to a utter disaster of a document.
No, we haven't. You and your ilk keep saying that, but that is all you are doing. Talking, spouting, pontificating, and the reason that is all you are doing, is that you have not been able to prove your bullshyte. As has been pointed out. Canada's contribution to carbon emissions is miniscule. It has no effect on world emissions or on the over all contribution to our atmosphere. The carbon taxes and cap and trade are money grabs only.
That is a little point they like to exclude which shows how bogus the science is.for the dogmatics:
If the worlds warms up we will use less energy in heating which solves the problem, if it gets colder we use more and that fixes that problem. It seems to be almost self regulating as long as we have access to oil, lose that and the weather wins.
More than a thousand people, huh...............wow.........no truly I am really impressed at that impressive number, really.
Framework - key word there. Nothing has been agreed to in any concrete terms - nothing. Think of it this way, they are building a house and have just completed the underlying structure ..............long way to go before folks move in.
I applaud Brad Wall for his sensible stance.
Mentalfloss, had you stopped to read what he wrote you would have noticed that no where did he state that humans were or were not affecting the climate. He said, and I agree that nothing we can do is going to change what happens/is happening to Earth's climate.
BC's carbon tax scam is not revenue neutral. Unless perhaps you live in Vancouver on a bus route or upstairs apartment from where you work. It is certainly NOT cost neutral to rural residents.
I imagine what ever studies you got that info from also took into consideration the short and long term effects on our climate of the volcanic eruptions that have been and are taking place on a regular basis.
She/he's got my interest.
The 'prevailing rationale' eh. :lol::lol:
for the dogmatics:
Thank you Mr Noble.
How right you are, ts.
for the dogmatics:
Look at it in terms of the G7.
It's more like 15% of influence. You only need a few more countries and you're there.
BTW, we already have that so there is no waiting for anyone anyway.
34% are the papers on climate change that deal with the question of cause.
You wouldn't look at the others because they are not relevant to that question.
It would be like asking for a consensus on bee mating habits and using all of the studies about bees (even those that have nothing to do with their mating habits).
So yea, everything should be according to plan as long as the D doesn't become prez.