09-19-2018, 12:14 PM
|
#281
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: BELTLINE
|
Quote:
Your defence is that he isn’t a climate change denier, he merely denies the degree to which human behaviour has contributed to it. So he’s just challenging the findings of scientists who have studied climate change, without providing any real fact based analysis to refute their claims. Doesn’t that support oling_roachinen’s position that there are UCP candidates who don’t believe in science?
|
Nobody knows the degree to which humans are contributing, just that we are.
|
|
|
09-19-2018, 12:24 PM
|
#282
|
Franchise Player
|
It goes both ways. How am I supposed to vote for a party that wants to destroy the economy?
Alberta NDP talks the talk...kinda. Big brother federal NPD party is anti oil and gas and doesn't try to hide it.
Canada contributes 1.5% or so of world CO2 emissions. How can I vote for a party who thinks its a good idea to completely destroy our economy to bring that even lower while the US and China do whatever the F they want.
__________________
GFG
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to dino7c For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-19-2018, 12:36 PM
|
#283
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducay
I don't really know anything about the claims made re:climate change by UCP, but for argument's sake, lets assume they are dumb and as bad as you think.
I'm not trying to convince you re:UCP, but as a voter, you're really going to discount an entire party and the other 1000 policies they have over one fact you disagree with? No party will align perfectly with one person, but seems a bit short sighted to use one belief (that literally likely has the least tangible impact on provincial policy of any) and make your decision on that?
|
When the one or two believes make up the core of who I believe I am, absolutely those two will outweigh the rest of the 998.
I believe I am a good-hearted, rational person. To me, it is extremely important that I vote for a candidate that follows along those lines. If there's a candidate who I perceive to be as a bigot, whether sexist, xenophobic, racist, homophobic, transphobic or any other reasoning that I believe he or she is not a good person, I will be extremely hesitant to vote for them. Similarly, and (unfortunately) maybe more important is a candidate who is rational and reasonable.
I also wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment that being a climate change denier has the least tangible impact. It is a clear sign that a person is neither rational enough to listen to experts nor has the ability to be reasoned with. A person who let's bias get in their way of critical thinking is the last person I want as a candidate, even if they were "on my side." I don't know if there would be a bigger red flag to me than a legitimate candidate who was a climate change denier at this point.
And the fact that this wasn't just some last minute, fill the ballet, position but instead was a heated nomination. The candidate was the former campaign manager for Jason Kenney and Kenney was excited that he won. This wasn't a Deborah Drever situation, which of course was NDP's own challenge and problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiracSpike
Nobody knows the degree to which humans are contributing, just that we are.
|
That's such a cop out. The guy goes for a decade calling climate change a hoax and then when asked (as it becomes an issue) says he isn't sure how much human involvement has. Let's call a spade a spade, there's no need to defend him.
|
|
|
09-19-2018, 12:53 PM
|
#284
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiracSpike
From that article here's what the guy in question said:
That's not a denial at all. So it seems like a bit of a stretch to impugn an entire party as anti science for that. If you don't want to vote for this guy that's fine, or if you think that the NDP will do more to combat climate change than the UCP that's your prerogative as voter.
|
The guy called global warming a hoax. Yes, I think we can say he's a denier.
|
|
|
09-19-2018, 12:53 PM
|
#285
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dino7c
Canada contributes 1.5% or so of world CO2 emissions.
|
Some estimates say Canada eats more carbon than it emits due to the boreal forest and land mass in general.
|
|
|
09-19-2018, 12:54 PM
|
#286
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dino7c
Canada contributes 1.5% or so of world CO2 emissions. How can I vote for a party who thinks its a good idea to completely destroy our economy to bring that even lower while the US and China do whatever the F they want.
|
The U.S. and China contribute 43% of the worlds carbon emissions. Canada 1.5%.
We’re putting a stranglehold on the Canadian economy to improve the worlds carbon emissions by maybe 0.5% at best.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to stampsx2 For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-19-2018, 01:00 PM
|
#287
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
Some estimates say Canada eats more carbon than it emits due to the boreal forest and land mass in general.
|
Silence you heathen!!!
We have to sacrifice ourselves for the betterment of the world!
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-19-2018, 01:01 PM
|
#288
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
Some estimates say Canada eats more carbon than it emits due to the boreal forest and land mass in general.
|
Tell that to the European countries who signed onto the Paris accord and are going to be using burning wood as a renewable energy source. Because it’s renewable it won’t count towards the countries total carbon emissions.
Unfortunately burning wood has twice the carbon emissions of natural gas.
https://m.phys.org/news/2018-09-euro...ed-global.html
Europe's decision to promote the use of wood as a "renewable fuel" will likely greatly increase Europe's greenhouse gas emissions and cause severe harm to the world's forests, according to a new paper published in Nature Communications.
|
|
|
09-19-2018, 01:01 PM
|
#289
|
Franchise Player
|
And don't get me wrong. It's not that environmental issues outweigh everything else for me. Far from it. For exactly the reasons being stated.
It's the fact that Randy Kerr doesn't believe in climate change. That he denies scientific research and papers in favour of hoax websites. He routinely had spewed right-wing, conspiracy theories on his Facebook with no critical thinking. He was told something that agreed with his world-view and decided to believe it fullstop. He's not reasonable or rational. Which regardless of which side of the political spectrum is or your person policies, should be near the top of the attributes you want from your politician. I want a politician who can set aside his bias, listen to experts and make informed decisions. You should too.
And yet this is who won the party nominations. It doesn't give me faith in the party.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-19-2018, 01:06 PM
|
#290
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
And don't get me wrong. It's not that environmental issues outweigh everything else for me. Far from it. For exactly the reasons being stated.
It's the fact that Randy Kerr doesn't believe in climate change. That he denies scientific research and papers in favour of hoax websites. He routinely had spewed right-wing, conspiracy theories on his Facebook with no critical thinking. He was told something that agreed with his world-view and decided to believe it fullstop. He's not reasonable or rational. Which regardless of which side of the political spectrum is or your person policies, should be near the top of the attributes you want from your politician. I want a politician who can set aside his bias, listen to experts and make informed decisions. You should too.
And yet this is who won the party nominations. It doesn't give me faith in the party.
|
If you are so enthusiastic about climate change experts go back 20 years and look at their predictions. Then look at reality. That doesn't mean climate change is not an issue and we should give up, the actual problem is the politicization of climate change. We've spend billions (maybe trillions) and almost nothing has been accomplished.
|
|
|
09-19-2018, 01:06 PM
|
#291
|
Posted the 6 millionth post!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
Some estimates say Canada eats more carbon than it emits due to the boreal forest and land mass in general.
|
Source?
|
|
|
09-19-2018, 01:07 PM
|
#292
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
I want a politician who can set aside his bias, listen to experts and make informed decisions. You should too.
|
So then you won’t be voting for Singh or Trudeau?
|
|
|
09-19-2018, 01:09 PM
|
#294
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2
So then you won’t be voting for Singh or Trudeau?
|
Probably not in the Alberta election, no.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-19-2018, 01:41 PM
|
#295
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: BELTLINE
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
The guy called global warming a hoax. Yes, I think we can say he's a denier.
|
No, we can't, but ok.
You're really grasping at straws here to draw a box around the entire party based around one member. To say nothing of your other claims aobut the UCP being homophobic bigoted and uneducated. It's non-sensical and irrational, which is weird because I've read like three comments from you already claiming what an unbiased and logical person you are.
I'll save you some time even considering the NDP for your vote as well, because their current MLA Deborah Drever made a homophobic remark on her social media in 2015. Clearly the entire party is homophobic.
|
|
|
09-19-2018, 01:57 PM
|
#296
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiracSpike
No, we can't, but ok.
|
What? The guy goes a decade posting anti-climate change propaganda on his facebook. Going so far as calling global warming a hoax. "In one post from Aug. 13, 2007, Kerr used his personal Facebook account to link to a blog post he said “exposes global warming for the hoax we’ve always known it to be."
If the guy calls global warming a hoax, he's a climate change denier. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Quote:
Kerr’s Facebook page has a long history of posts denying the existence of climate change, or expressing skepticism about the phenomenon.
In April 2017, Kerr shared an anti-climate change article from the Daily Caller, another right-wing U.S. news site website.
In October of that year, he posted an article from Calgary-based climate change denial group Friends of Science. Its title was “Don’t Call Climate Change Skeptics ‘Deniers,’ Call Us ‘Correct.’”
Kerr posted an article forecasting a “mini ice age” on Jan. 2, 2018. It was published by Climate Change Dispatch, a site whose managing editor has also written articles for Breitbart.
On May 8, Kerr posted a graphic falsely claiming that “climate alarmists” exaggerate carbon dioxide’s affect on climate change by failing to account for water vapour and its warming effect on the atmosphere. The idea has been refuted by a U.S. government scientist speaking to the Scientific American.
That graphic is credited to Dixon Diaz, a blogger who has spread several hoax images.
Another article shared to the account on June 15, entitled “Swedish Researchers Confirm 20th Century Global Warming ‘Does Not Stand Out’ over Past 2500 Years!” is from No Tricks Zone, a climate skeptic blog whose posts have previously been debunked by Snopes and picked up by Breitbart.
When asked if he considered the blog a reliable source, Kerr said, “No, it’s just an ongoing source. Just another one of the many voices out there.”
|
Why are you going so far out of your way to defend a guy who doesn't really even deny it. He called global warming a hoax, we know where he stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiracSpike
You're really grasping at straws here to draw a box around the entire party based around one member. To say nothing of your other claims aobut the UCP being homophobic bigoted and uneducated. It's non-sensical and irrational, which is weird because I've read like three comments from you already claiming what an unbiased and logical person you are.
|
It's the parties duty to vet candidates. They said that they had. This nominee not only made it through, but won the nomination. Of course he doesn't represent the party as a whole. But he does represent the party. If the UCP didn't want to make climate change denial a part of this election, they simply had to not have climate change deniers on the ballot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiracSpike
I'll save you some time even considering the NDP for your vote as well, because their current MLA Deborah Drever made a homophobic remark on her social media in 2015. Clearly the entire party is homophobic.
|
*Saves time* *Literally posts about the NDP candidate I talked about in my last post* Cool.
|
|
|
09-19-2018, 02:09 PM
|
#297
|
Participant
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
What? The guy goes a decade posting anti-climate change propaganda on his facebook. Going so far as calling global warming a hoax. "In one post from Aug. 13, 2007, Kerr used his personal Facebook account to link to a blog post he said “exposes global warming for the hoax we’ve always known it to be.".
|
Yeah, but he’s clearly saying it EXISTS (as a hoax) so how can he be DENYING something he’s saying EXISTS (as a hoax).
Nice try!!
|
|
|
09-19-2018, 03:49 PM
|
#298
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: BELTLINE
|
Quote:
It's the parties duty to vet candidates. They said that they had. This nominee not only made it through, but won the nomination. Of course he doesn't represent the party as a whole. But he does represent the party. If the UCP didn't want to make climate change denial a part of this election, they simply had to not have climate change deniers on the ballot
|
You're seriously going to set this as your standard for parties but then hand wave over Drever? Doesn't make much sense.
|
|
|
09-19-2018, 04:08 PM
|
#299
|
Participant
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiracSpike
You're seriously going to set this as your standard for parties but then hand wave over Drever? Doesn't make much sense.
|
Would you prefer to be judged over a public stance you’ve held for over a decade? Or a singular comment?
Point being that it actual makes perfect sense if you can distinguish the difference between the two. Are you suggesting that it doesn’t make sense to distinguish between the two?
|
|
|
09-19-2018, 04:12 PM
|
#300
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiracSpike
You're seriously going to set this as your standard for parties but then hand wave over Drever? Doesn't make much sense.
|
No? At no point have I supported Drever nor the NDP in all of this. In fact, I brought her up long before you did calling it a problem with the NDP. See, you made an argument up in your head because you couldn't possible see any reason someone wouldn't blindly support all UCP candidates. You let your extreme bias get in your way of any form of critical thinking. You should have ran for the nomination in Calgary Beddington.
I wanted to support the UCP. I wanted a fiscal conservative party to get behind, I said as much. If you took ten seconds to actually read the posts instead of get defensive because the UCP has a ####ty candidate, you would realize I am disappointed that they would have such a nominee make the ballot. I would only be disappointed if I wanted to support them, otherwise people like him are the exact chance any other party has of making a case, as minimal as it is because, yes, people like him are costing them my vote.
It shouldn't be an odd request for someone to hope that they can vote for a rational and reasonable candidate to support instead of a science denier. It shouldn't be an odd request to have someone they support be a genuinely good person (or perceived to be). At one point, that was the bare minimum.
But because you yell out "ECONOMY" a couple times, I guess that means we're suppose to just blindly vote for poor candidates? And anyone who isn't okay with that, is clearly just shilling for the other party - despite calling out their issues as well...
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:13 AM.
|
|