So.
Yesterday, I'm on another blog discussing the whole "Climate Change" thing.. and because I still have some questions, I get attacked because I'm one of those blasphemers or heretics who doesn't just swallow everything that he is fed. I'm a person who believes that the science DOES suggest we can negatively impact our Climate - but I'm not convinced that the REALITY of that impact is as dire as some might suggest. I'm not saying I KNOW it won't be that bad, I'm saying, I have questions.
And that isn't allowed, you know. And it's not just that those who disagree on this point will explain to you WHY, they use words like "denier" and "liar" and so forth - and they really go out of their way to diminish the genuine feelings of uncertainty that you have. And in doing so, they distance themselves and make it LESS likely that you will consider anything they have to say.
This is the arrogance and the lack of connection with reality that permeates Liberal politics. They have no time for discussion with those who are "less enlightened", like you and me. But, Mr. Ignatieff and other Liberal "great thinkers", here is the thing.
Most Canadians aren't that sure that everything you say is just so. And as you diminish their understandable lack of trust in you, as you attack those who happen to disagree with you, you effectively provide more support for Stephen Harper and his Conservatives.
I'll tell you something, which is difficult to admit. I did at one point waver. There was a part of me at one point that thought Ignatieff could be a leader. Then, as time went by, clearly from my blogs, it was apparent he was a charlatan, a fake - that he was no leader.
However - with the "big cheque" fiasco, and following up on differences I have with the Conservative position on crime control, some concerns I have about the appointments to the Senate, I was becoming a little jaded on the whole game. And I felt like, perhaps, being more of a bystander, than a participant.
Today? I cut a cheque to the Conservative Party of Canada. I encourage every person reading my blog today to do the same thing. There is no place in MY Canada for those who diminish the concerns and the questions of the average Canadian. There is no proper outcome in the next election but a complete and utter defeat of the Liberal Party of Canada.
And that takes money.
So, fellow "thinkers", for those of you who want to have the liberty to speak your mind, to be spoken to by your leaders, not "down to from" your leaders - dig in to your pockets. And send a message to the Liberals in this country.
You screwed with the wrong people.
25 comments:
Excellent Post.
I agree us "deniers", morons who have different priorities to clean up our local environment are "whack jobs".
I appreciate being attacked called a racist, denier, conbot because I have a different opinion or priority.
Wanting safe drinking water, swimming in the great lakes makes me a "shill" for the Oil companies.
The Horror of being a con-bot today!
Do you think they realize they are pushing "reasonable" people into the other camp?
More and more people are being climate realists. We will win this debate because the science is on our side.
Thanks CS.. I'm so sick of trying to swim upstream with those people.
It suddenly struck me today that while there are certainly those on the right who feel strongly and who will argue with you.. you seldom get the feeling like you're being talked down to.
So. For now, I see little point in trying to establish dialogue with Liberals - until they really hit bottom, I don't see any hope in that party to see beyond their own narrow-minded ideology.
As per my daycare post yesterday, their "rightness" is without qualification. Regardless of the consequences.
RH,
we are not their "equals" and we have no opinion of importance.
The Liberal "rot" is deep and they believe superficial changes will restore them back to power.
Compare 2008 official results vs 2009 we have NOT moved.
We are talking about 1-2% from the October 14, 2009 results. Media is to blame for feeding the BS people have moved.
CPC 37.6% Lib 26.3%
Moe 1.7%
Biggest NON story is stories are being listened to and affecting their voting.
Who listens to the MSM garbage anymore?
See TV rating viewership for MSM
Powerplay, CBC, CTV lately?
I'm not saying I KNOW it won't be that bad, I'm saying, I have questions.
And what are you doing to have them answered?
This is a serious question, one that has been put to you many times. The fact that you won't answer it indicates a level of intellectual dishonesty that implies that you not discussing this in good faith.
TG.. I'm happy to have a "conversation". I'm not inclined to want abuse. Call me sensitive.
Speaking of polls...
"By a two-to-one margin (62-27), respondents said they believed Canada and the United States have a responsibility "to set higher and harder targets" for greenhouse-gas reductions than "fast-growing" countries such as China and India."
"Pollster Doug Anderson suggested Friday the Conservative climate-change argument has been heard by Canadians, and rejected."
What arrogance. Why doesn't the Conservative Party of Canada listen to Canadians?
I'm happy to have a "conversation".
That's swell. So let me repeat my last question: What have you been doing to get answers to the questions you have about Global Warming?
I think I will wait a bit to write the cheque to the CPC - to make sure that we do not buy into any useless inflationary global cap 'n trade scheme. The global climate change science is not settled, but humans ARE using too many resources for little value. We need to reduce consumption instead and demand that manufacturers make things that last. If demand for things goes down, fewer resources are needed. We in the first world all have too much stuff. It is not the plastic bag that is the problem; it is that something was purchased! That will reduce the burning of fuels.
We need to reduce consumption..
Since when do Conservatives believe that? Or support any measures other than "greater choice" to reduce consumption?
Roy Eappen,
Some in the left confuse responsible stewardship, sustainable development with the artist formerly called "Global Warming".
Some in the left think giving crown corporations, private investors "subsidies" to build windmills and build "smart grids" will solve our dirty dirty use of carbon based fuel.
This is the same group who are screaming about the HST tax on everything but are eager to transfer Billions in taxes those friends in the "Green" energy industry.
Should someone point out who those investors are?
Here's a question:
There was a time when most of North America was a tropical climate. My understanding (as limited as it is) was that this is where our petroleum deposits come from - massive vegetation.
Massive vegitation in my mind = increased food production.
Is there not a certain positive aspect then to a warming climate in terms of increased habitability of the northern hemisphere and increased food production?
Second question:
Methane contribution to the greenhouse effect is 10 times than of CO2 - such that recent scientific study suggests more "bang for the buck" can be reaped by looking at methane sources as opposed to focussing on CO2 alone. Methane sources include rice paddies, cattle and livestock, and wetlands. Is there not some utility in looking beyond an attack on petroleum production and consumption as the only identified target of GHG emissions?
Third Question:
Recent studies have, in fact, suggested that large spread plague in the middle-ages may have precipitate the "little ice age" by virtue of the dramatic reduction of living and breathing human beings on the planet, resulting in massive reforestation.
So. It appears that if we can attack de-forestation, particularly, large-scale burning of forested areas, we can, in fact, produce a "cooling" effect.
Yet - almost all current global warming hysteria points to production of petroleum and productino of carbon for vehicle and industrial use as the sole response.
The largest proliferation of forestation is in the equatorial regions of the planet, and, not suprisingly, the largest large-scale deforestation is also taking place in those parts of the planet.
And yet - fingers are constantly pointed, particularly at North America as the principal contributor to climate change.
Where is the discussion regarding the contribution of tropical regions.
Question 4:
Related to the foregoing, much of our deforestation, and use of agricuilature (cattle, rice = methane) relates to population expansion. More people require more land requires more food results in increased CO2 and methane, results in increased global warming, according to the theory.
Canada has a natural population growth rate of only .3% (not including immigration). World growth rate is 1.14%, almost four times that of Canada. Most European countries also have low growth rates, and in some cases, negative natural population growth (Russia and Ukraine at about -.5%)
In other words, expanding population has a massive potential impact on climate change, and yet, the UN and the IPCC seem to show very little regard for anyone being required to take action but North Americ and European countries - which migh cause one to wonder if there is more "politics" invading this dicussion than "science".
One notes with more than passing interset that the Kyoto accord completely ignores the issue of deforestation relative to climate change.
If we believe some of the most current research, reforestation in the middle-ages actually brought about a mini-ice age. How then is it that we ignore completely what may be a massive part of the over-all issue.
I'll tell you why.
The IPCC is not simply a scientific endeavor. It is a political endeavor. Kyoto is only in some part a response to global warming issues and is, in fact, a great response to the issue of redistribution of global wealth.
Explain to me how population growth is irrelvenat and how in fact forestation is apparently irrelevant to the discussion.
Yes - I know the argument is that North America and Europe are, on a per capita basis, the highest consumers of carbon in the world. But - per capita concerns only go so far and we still have the issue of gross human population growth which is something more than insignificant.
So Ti-Guy. Answer that.
See ya Rob. Too dishonest to waste any more time on.
See ya Rob. Too dishonest to waste any more time on.
Yes, yes you are.
Good riddance, trash.
Did I ask for your opinion, asshole?
I encourage every person reading my blog today to do the same thing. There is no place in MY Canada for those who diminish the concerns and the questions of the average Canadian. There is no proper outcome in the next election but a complete and utter defeat of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Indeed. The donation is on its way. :D
Did I ask for your opinion, asshole?
What, you're still here?
Not like I require your permission, trash.
Now run along, like a good little troll. :D
Congrats Search ..in TI Guy you had your riposte fully confirmed. How is it the these people are so blind thay can't see how they come across?
The reason is that Utopians always think they have moral superiority and that anyone that disagrees is by extension morally inferior. Therefore their ideas are unworth consideration.
In Psychiatric terminology this is called a "Concrete Mentality".
Note: the gratuitous playground epithets are all part of this syndrome.
JLK
TG - gets faced with a serious series of questions in response to HIS demand, and, true to form, he has nothing to contribute constructively.
Impressive.
RH,
TG may have recently adopted the a Forrest Gump strategy for debate.
Run TG...run!
LOL.. well, "you never know what your gonna get."
TG - gets faced with a serious series of questions in response to HIS demand...
Which only proves you're evasive and dishonest.
Besides, none of your claims were sourced, so I would have had to spend a lot time on my own determining whether they're even true first, before responding to your questions.
You know that of course. That's why you responded the way you did.
*tsk tsk tsk*
he says this blog is too dishonest to spend any more time on, and yet 3 days later, he is still here.
Stupid is as stupid does. And Ti-Guy, you do it well. As always. :D
TG may suffer from a Liberal OCD.
He thinks his views are naturally correct because as a Liberal they always believe others are inferior.
TG likes to post insults and call for censoring on Liberal blogs.
He enjoys reading his own posts and gets very upset when you challenge his view of the universe.
The Liberal cheerleaders 4-10 have been taking a beating this past month.
Lib blogs continues to lose bloggers. TG is finding fewer place to share his Liberal OCD.
he says this blog is too dishonest to spend any more time on, and yet 3 days later, he is still here.
I know. Aren't I just pure evil.
I happen to like Rob, so it's disappointing to me that he has decided to embrace is inner wingnut in such a coarse and crude fashion.
Post a Comment