CP: Clean Air Act treats Canadians like 'idiots,' says author

[Canadian Blue]

I gave you links for everything I said when you asked for sources. The fact that you didn't bother to read them means that you didn't want them in the first place. If you want reasonable debate, you should at least read sources provided by those you are debating with. So far you haven't shown any interest in doing so. I don't see how this helps the forum either.

You never gave any credible links. The fact you can't provide any is more then enough proof.

In fact here are some of the quality responses which were given in this thread.

In case you haven't noticed, 2012 is still 6 years away.

Stop LYING about the issue. The issue is NOT that we cannot meet our Kyoto targets. The issue IS that we are NOT even TRYING to meet our targets.

The Liberals were awfully slow moving but they put a few programs in place. A small attempt but an attempt nevertheless. Those programs were promptly canceled by the Cons as soon as they got in power. They came up with this "Clean" Air Act, which is just as clean as "Clean" coal and aromatic dogshit. It is an outrage and an insult - a slap in Canadians' face. We are not as retarded as Harper thinks we are.

And you are dimented

As for the link, trust me I'll trust the Common Dreams Newscenter over BBC, CNN, The Guardian, and Time, any day. As well the link you provided was from 1999. Alot has happened since then.

[Canuck E Stan]

There is a tonne of papers/books written on the issue. But if you can't be bothered to read them or recognize that they even exist, that's your problem, not the environmentalists.

PS. There are 458 thousand hits on google for "conserving energy". There are tons more for conserving electricity, gasoline, etc. Don't tell me that the Liberals have taken away your internet access.

You my friend are exactly the type I'm talking about.

I've read tonnes of this stuff, I know what I can do,but where is the rebuttal on the government's ideas,what is a "better" program,where is a viable solution to the government's proposal?

Where is your? Easy to critize,but where is your solution that takes in environment,economics,time frame,cost,regulations,employment,ect.,ect.

Your thinking that by googling 458 thousand hits on google for "conserving energy"is a solution is extremely niave and simplistic, just as most environmentalist thinking is.

Environmentalists are in a hurry,2050 is too long,so set up a program that you think is better,I'm listening for the better solution, the better answer.

Enough googling,time for answers.

Better hurry,I'm waiting.

[Mimas]

There is a tonne of papers/books written on the issue. But if you can't be bothered to read them or recognize that they even exist, that's your problem, not the environmentalists.

PS. There are 458 thousand hits on google for "conserving energy". There are tons more for conserving electricity, gasoline, etc. Don't tell me that the Liberals have taken away your internet access.

You my friend are exactly the type I'm talking about.

I've read tonnes of this stuff, I know what I can do,but where is the rebuttal on the government's ideas,what is a "better" program,where is a viable solution to the government's proposal?

Where is your? Easy to critize,but where is your solution that takes in environment,economics,time frame,cost,regulations,employment,ect.,ect.

Your thinking that by googling 458 thousand hits on google for "conserving energy"is a solution is extremely niave and simplistic, just as most environmentalist thinking is.

Environmentalists are in a hurry,2050 is too long,so set up a program that you think is better,I'm listening for the better solution, the better answer.

Enough googling,time for answers.

Better hurry,I'm waiting.

Dear, you are just trying to argue. No matter what I told you, you'd just keep going on and on about the crazy environmentalists and so on. The "better solution" for you would be to do nothing. I hope you can explain to your grandkids some day why it was the "better solution".

[Canadian Blue]

Yet you still can't bring up your solution Mimas. I hear all of this talk coming from you, but nothing in terms of solutions.

Until you can provide some real solutions, stop telling people to "Shut Up", "Stop Lying", "Your demented", and "Your retarded".

[Mimas]

Well, PM me the links, I never saw the links on your replies.

Just go back to the topic and find the links. They are the blue underlined strings of characters in my response. It was before you provided your links, only one of which had anything to do with Kosovo.

In fact here are some of the quality responses which were given in this thread.

In case you haven't noticed, 2012 is still 6 years away.

Stop LYING about the issue. The issue is NOT that we cannot meet our Kyoto targets. The issue IS that we are NOT even TRYING to meet our targets.

That's exactly what I meant. Cons always try to twist reality and change the subject. When you misrepresent what your opponent says, just to avoid criticism, that's basically a lie. Nobody is accusing the Cons of not being able to meet the Kyoto targets because everyone knows that at this point even if the Greens were in power, they wouldn't be able to do it. The issue is that the Cons will do even less than the Libs (i.e. absolutely nothing) and that's their own choice. They cannot blame the Libs or anyone else for their own inaction. You CANNOT blame anyone for what you do or don't do! So stop misrepresenting the issue.

[Canuck E Stan]

Dear, you are just trying to argue. No matter what I told you, you'd just keep going on and on about the crazy environmentalists and so on. The "better solution" for you would be to do nothing. I hope you can explain to your grandkids some day why it was the "better solution".

Complex issues are too far beyond your scope of thinking. I hope for the sake of your grandchildren ,you don't have children.

[Mimas]

Yet you still can't bring up your solution Mimas. I hear all of this talk coming from you, but nothing in terms of solutions.

Until you can provide some real solutions, stop telling people to "Shut Up", "Stop Lying", "Your demented", and "Your retarded".

Until you can read people's responses and sources, stop telling people to back this or that up. The only reason you don't know about the solutions (or claim not to know) is because you don't want to know. Millions of articles, research papers, etc. have been written, full of solutions but you don't want to recognize that they exist. The reason Europeans use half as much energy as we do is because they have adopted some of those solutions. It's not because Europe is small, warm, has fewer native English speakers or any other silly reason you can come up with.

[Mimas]

Dear, you are just trying to argue. No matter what I told you, you'd just keep going on and on about the crazy environmentalists and so on. The "better solution" for you would be to do nothing. I hope you can explain to your grandkids some day why it was the "better solution".

Complex issues are too far beyond your scope of thinking. I hope for the sake of your grandchildren ,you don't have children.

Now go to the garage, start your car and leave the door closed. Carbon monoxide is not harmful either.

[Canuck E Stan]

Now go to the garage, start your can and leave the door closed. Carbon monoxide is not harmful either.

In your case, greenhouse gases definately did not cause your damage. I'm so sorry,I didn't know.

[Mimas]

Now go to the garage, start your car and leave the door closed. Carbon monoxide is not harmful either.

In your case, greenhouse gases definately did not cause your damage. I'm so sorry,I didn't know.

In your case, Harper has a point in treating Canadians like idiots.

[geoffrey]

In your case, Harper has a point in treating Canadians like idiots.

Most people are. I don't blame him. Good reason to keep voter turnouts low.

[Big Blue Machine]

The average voter is too stupid to know whats good for him/her

[Canadian Blue]

Until you can read people's responses and sources, stop telling people to back this or that up. The only reason you don't know about the solutions (or claim not to know) is because you don't want to know. Millions of articles, research papers, etc. have been written, full of solutions but you don't want to recognize that they exist. The reason Europeans use half as much energy as we do is because they have adopted some of those solutions. It's not because Europe is small, warm, has fewer native English speakers or any other silly reason you can come up with.

How about your solution........

We also here arguments about how Global Warming is natural and not caused by humans. Really, their is alot more to the issue then you want to point out.

That's exactly what I meant. Cons always try to twist reality and change the subject. When you misrepresent what your opponent says, just to avoid criticism, that's basically a lie. Nobody is accusing the Cons of not being able to meet the Kyoto targets because everyone knows that at this point even if the Greens were in power, they wouldn't be able to do it. The issue is that the Cons will do even less than the Libs (i.e. absolutely nothing) and that's their own choice. They cannot blame the Libs or anyone else for their own inaction. You CANNOT blame anyone for what you do or don't do! So stop misrepresenting the issue.

As have the New Democrats, Liberals, Bloc, Communists, Marxists Leninists, and Green parties. Have you heard of spin, Warren Kinsella a Liberal strategist was the master of it.

If the cons were doing nothing about it, why would they be willing to go to the table with the NDP in order to hammer out a deal.

[Mimas]

Until you can read people's responses and sources, stop telling people to back this or that up. The only reason you don't know about the solutions (or claim not to know) is because you don't want to know. Millions of articles, research papers, etc. have been written, full of solutions but you don't want to recognize that they exist. The reason Europeans use half as much energy as we do is because they have adopted some of those solutions. It's not because Europe is small, warm, has fewer native English speakers or any other silly reason you can come up with.

How about your solution........

We also here arguments about how Global Warming is natural and not caused by humans. Really, their is alot more to the issue then you want to point out.

If you look at the scientific literature, there are no such arguments because they don't stand up to scrutiny. Scientific journals are written by scientists, publishted by scientists and read by scientists. Nonsence does not appear in such places. All such arguments appear in newspapers and magazines which are written by whomever, published by journalists, and read by the average Joe. Similarly arguments for "intelligent design" do no appear in scientific journals because it's nonsence but a whole bunch of "Christian scientists" write in papers and scream at the top of their lungs that kids should be taught in school that the Earth is 6,000 years old. You have to distinguish between credible arguments and junk arguments.

Besides, if global warming were natural, we should be part of the solution, not part of the problem. If your house were set on fire by lightning, you would try to extinguish the fire, not pour gasoline on it, now wouldn't you?

That's exactly what I meant. Cons always try to twist reality and change the subject. When you misrepresent what your opponent says, just to avoid criticism, that's basically a lie. Nobody is accusing the Cons of not being able to meet the Kyoto targets because everyone knows that at this point even if the Greens were in power, they wouldn't be able to do it. The issue is that the Cons will do even less than the Libs (i.e. absolutely nothing) and that's their own choice. They cannot blame the Libs or anyone else for their own inaction. You CANNOT blame anyone for what you do or don't do! So stop misrepresenting the issue.

As have the New Democrats, Liberals, Bloc, Communists, Marxists Leninists, and Green parties. Have you heard of spin, Warren Kinsella a Liberal strategist was the master of it.

If the cons were doing nothing about it, why would they be willing to go to the table with the NDP in order to hammer out a deal.

Because they have passed almost no legislation so far, which makes them look really bad. Because all three opposition parties said flat out that they will vote against that legislation. Because they know that the "clean" air act is the biggest nail in their coffin (even though Afghanistan may become bigger). Because they need the credibility of the NDP on environmental issues to make their "clean" air act at least mildly acceptable to most of the electorate. Because they need to stay in power until the next budget, so that they can buy Quebec with the surplus and guarantee themselves at least another minority.

[sharkman]

Geez, another gerry thread. Find any twit who says something you like, then present it as fact. A journalist does not have the training or backgroung to address this issue with anything more than opinion. That he's a communist or socialist to boot gives him a huge anti-west chip on his shoulder.

[jdobbin]

Geez, another gerry thread. Find any twit who says something you like, then present it as fact. A journalist does not have the training or backgroung to address this issue with anything more than opinion. That he's a communist or socialist to boot gives him a huge anti-west chip on his shoulder.

And yet, the right wing trots out Steve Milloy and John Daly, reporters, to defend their case against global warming.

[sharkman]

Let's not be coy, both sides have actual scientists to support their positions. It seems you are defending gerry. Surely you could do better than that. The 'They do it too' strategy doesn't address the real issue.

[gerryhatrick]

Let's not be coy, both sides have actual scientists to support their positions.

Ah yes.

Thousands of practising climatologists agree that Global Warming is happening and is being caused by humans.

A handful of (mostly retired) scientists who act essentially as PR men are on the other side.

LET'S GIVE THEM EQUAL RESPECT PEOPLE!

[sharkman]

Let's not be coy, both sides have actual scientists to support their positions.

Ah yes.

Thousands of practising climatologists agree that Global Warming is happening and is being caused by humans.

A handful of (mostly retired) scientists who act essentially as PR men are on the other side.

LET'S GIVE THEM EQUAL RESPECT PEOPLE!

Yeah, try proving that. Links please, otherwise you are just blowing more hot air.

[Mimas]

Let's not be coy, both sides have actual scientists to support their positions. It seems you are defending gerry. Surely you could do better than that. The 'They do it too' strategy doesn't address the real issue.

Are you kidding? Actual scientists? The most vocal opponent of Kyoto on the scientific front in Canada is Tim Ball. A guy who claims to be the "first Ph.D in climatology" in Canada, even though there have been many before him. A guy who claims to have been a professor of climatology at UofW for 32 years, which would make him a professor back when he was in high-school. According to UofW, he was a professor of geography there for 8 years. A guy who hasn't done any research in 15 years - he did almost no research before retiring anyway. A guy who takes oil money, channeled through third parties to fund his anti-Kyoto organizations and campaigns. A guy who is 67 and couldn't care less what happens a couple of decades down the road because he won't be around much longer. You call that an "actual scientist"? I call that a lunatic and a lier.

[sharkman]

Let's not be coy, both sides have actual scientists to support their positions. It seems you are defending gerry. Surely you could do better than that. The 'They do it too' strategy doesn't address the real issue.

Are you kidding? Actual scientists? The most vocal opponent of Kyoto on the scientific front in Canada is Tim Ball. A guy who claims to be the "first Ph.D in climatology" in Canada, even though there have been many before him. A guy who claims to have been a professor of climatology at UofW for 32 years, which would make him a professor back when he was in high-school. According to UofW, he was a professor of geography there for 8 years. A guy who hasn't done any research in 15 years - he did almost no research before retiring anyway. A guy who takes oil money, channeled through third parties to fund his anti-Kyoto organizations and campaigns. A guy who is 67 and couldn't care less what happens a couple of decades down the road because he won't be around much longer. You call that an "actual scientist"? I call that a lunatic and a lier.

Kindly direct your remarks to comments I said, not strawmen or red herrings.

[Mimas]

Let's not be coy, both sides have actual scientists to support their positions. It seems you are defending gerry. Surely you could do better than that. The 'They do it too' strategy doesn't address the real issue.

Are you kidding? Actual scientists? The most vocal opponent of Kyoto on the scientific front in Canada is Tim Ball. A guy who claims to be the "first Ph.D in climatology" in Canada, even though there have been many before him. A guy who claims to have been a professor of climatology at UofW for 32 years, which would make him a professor back when he was in high-school. According to UofW, he was a professor of geography there for 8 years. A guy who hasn't done any research in 15 years - he did almost no research before retiring anyway. A guy who takes oil money, channeled through third parties to fund his anti-Kyoto organizations and campaigns. A guy who is 67 and couldn't care less what happens a couple of decades down the road because he won't be around much longer. You call that an "actual scientist"? I call that a lunatic and a lier.

Kindly direct your remarks to comments I said, not strawmen or red herrings.

Kindly find any credible scientists (who don't lie about their credentials) who say that the current warming of the climate is not the result (at least in part) of human activity. Because Tim Ball is the best you can come up with in Canada.

[normanchateau]

This guy is a communist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot

I must have missed the reference that he is a Communist.

You can call your self little boy blue, but if you associate with communists or spew communist dogma you are a communist. Monbiot was with Respect, a party that advocates communist type policy, the politics of envy and cultural marxism. Which is economic marxism translated into cultural terms.

Thanks B. Max for your definition of a communist. In support of your claim that "...to associate with communists..." makes Monbiot a communist, the wikipedia link points out: "In 1995 Nelson Mandela presented him with a United Nations Global 500 Award for outstanding environmental achievement."

And consistent with your logic, here's the view of one Conservative MP about Nelson Mandela:

"[Honouring Nelson Mendela is a] total political-correctness poster-boy thing... He was a Communist. He was a terrorist... The Liberals always deprive us unanimous consent on all sorts of provisions. They wouldn't allow us to honour the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen with regard to their wedding anniversary..."

- Conservative MP Rob Anders, explaining why he voted against a resolution to make former South African president Nelson Mendela an honourary Canadian citizen, June 6th, 2001.

And here is Conservative MP Rob Anders again:

"I don't think that, you know, anybody would argue that if Nelson Mandela was saying, you know, 30 years ago, that you should go around with matches and necklaces and strangle people or burn them out of their homes, that is not terrorism."

- Conservative MP Rob Anders after blocking a resolution to declare former South African president Nelson Mandela an honorary Canadian citizen, June 11, 2001. Anders also implied that South Africa was better off during Apartheid than it is today.

And Stephen Harper's view of Conservative MP Rob Anders:

"Rob is a true reformer and a true conservative. He has been a faithful supporter of mine and I am grateful for his work."

- Stephen Harper endorsing Calgary West Conservative MP Rob Anders.

[Canadian Blue]

Norman why are you bringing this up, other then for another oppurtunity to keep on with your hate of Harper.

We all know you hate Harper, give it a rest.

[B. Max]

This guy is a communist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot

I must have missed the reference that he is a Communist.

You can call your self little boy blue, but if you associate with communists or spew communist dogma you are a communist. Monbiot was with Respect, a party that advocates communist type policy, the politics of envy and cultural marxism. Which is economic marxism translated into cultural terms.

Thanks B. Max for your definition of a communist. In support of your claim that "...to associate with communists..." makes Monbiot a communist, the wikipedia link points out: "In 1995 Nelson Mandela presented him with a United Nations Global 500 Award for outstanding environmental achievement."

And consistent with your logic, here's the view of one Conservative MP about Nelson Mandela:

"[Honouring Nelson Mendela is a] total political-correctness poster-boy thing... He was a Communist. He was a terrorist... The Liberals always deprive us unanimous consent on all sorts of provisions. They wouldn't allow us to honour the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen with regard to their wedding anniversary..."

- Conservative MP Rob Anders, explaining why he voted against a resolution to make former South African president Nelson Mendela an honourary Canadian citizen, June 6th, 2001.

And here is Conservative MP Rob Anders again:

"I don't think that, you know, anybody would argue that if Nelson Mandela was saying, you know, 30 years ago, that you should go around with matches and necklaces and strangle people or burn them out of their homes, that is not terrorism."

- Conservative MP Rob Anders after blocking a resolution to declare former South African president Nelson Mandela an honorary Canadian citizen, June 11, 2001. Anders also implied that South Africa was better off during Apartheid than it is today.

And Stephen Harper's view of Conservative MP Rob Anders:

"Rob is a true reformer and a true conservative. He has been a faithful supporter of mine and I am grateful for his work."

- Stephen Harper endorsing Calgary West Conservative MP Rob Anders.

What's your point. Are you saying there is, or is not any evidence of Monbiot being a communist. If one is elected does that then NOT, make them a communist. Monbiot suggests being elected, and then advocates global governance based on communist type ideology. With the lines blured between economic and cultural Marxism, now a days calling themselves progressives.