Climate change barbie

[chuckChuck]

Ok chuck ill argue the Issue.


The Minister in over her head.

isn't Gender it isn't who she is it isn't anything other than she has no qualification to do the job she is in.

Period.

McDonalds has openings she probably would get that job.

Shes more than qualified. You just disagree with her!

[burnt]

Dont bring up Ritz again! LOL

For some people it's all partisan whining all the time. It gets tiresome. Argue the issue and don't make the people the main issue.

Which is exactly what we are doing - demanding an answer to the issue climate barbie raised when speaking to the press.

chucky boy, you are a master at diversion! Good for you! You win a Climate Barbie sticker!

[furrowtickler]

Chuck , do you think the purchase of those vehicles 🚗 was justified?
What percentage of the population actually drives vehicles like that ?
Would you agree this is a big waste of tax payers money ? Really , two Porsche ?
These are just clearly going to be used as personal vehicles for Mckenna and her buddies. One would have to be a complete idiot not to see what that's all about .
The "knuckle drggers" you just blasted can see the truth in this ..... can you ?
This is a blatant misuse of tax payer money .

[danny W1M]

upchucky,

you know who the real knuckle dragger is ????

It's a sockboy PM, who picks his cabinet ministers based on whether they have a vagina or not! For cripes sakes, it's the 21st century, and this Prime Minister is still evaluating people by the sex organs they have!

Instead of weighing peoples talents for the positions that need to be filled, he just divides the names based on sex and fills the jobs equally from both lists, whether they a damn "Barbie" or not.

Look at climate change Barbie for example, she's so uneducated, she thinks that carbon in the atmosphere is "pollution", ya, no kidding. What does she think is responsible for plant growth on the planet. Not to mention the idiot incharge(supposedly) of RCA, what about the loser running the MMIW hearing, no experience/no talent, how about that crooked Morneau, filling his pockets with millions of dollars in only a matter of a year and a half, how about the defense minister who lied about his roll in the armed forces, how about the lying women who was in charge of Voting reform, entered the country illegally and gets a job in Trudeau's cabinet, other immigrates who did the same thing actually got kicked out of the country by Chretien of all people,,,,there's more,,the list just keeps going on....

[RWT101]

Let's see now.

Gore is a LAWYER pushing AGW.

Suzuki is a FLY scientist pushing AGW.

McKenna is a LAWYER pushing AGW and BIG CARBON TAXES.

Can't see where any of them were trained in climatology or meteorology.

And all of them are FOS when it comes to AGW and the earth's thermodynamic system.

McKenna blew her qualifications for the job when she declared CO2 was a pollutant.

Only a scientifically illiterate person make a statement like that.

[chuckChuck]

Here is the reasons given on the purchases of cars in question. This does not seem like a big deal to me since the Conservatives also purchased "luxury vehicles" for testing as well.

Farmers are routinely buying loaded up trucks for work which would fit into the luxury class as well. All tax deductible.

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/how-a-112k-tesla-put-the-liberals-on-the-defensive-over-emissions-testing
"In answer to questions from the Post, the department clarified that it has purchased 47 new and used light-duty vehicles for emissions testing since the Liberals were elected in November 2015. They ranged in price from $11,020 to $92,724, and 13 were luxury brands. The Tesla was purchased partly to test its battery in the Canadian climate.

Butts was quick to point out on Monday that the vehicles were bought for emissions testing, not for official use. But that did little to stem the tide of criticism, with some suggesting the government should rent or borrow the cars instead of buying them.

In an email, the department explained that buying cars is the most cost-effective way to test them, as the testing can often take several months and the cars are sometimes modified in the process.

Still, it may not be quite true that there are no alternatives. In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency requires car makers to provide vehicles for testing — free of charge — to confirm the manufacturers’ own emission results. In the wake of the 2015 Volkswagen emissions scandal, the agency also borrows vehicles directly from owners for two weeks of in-use testing, in exchange for a loaner vehicle and a small amount of money.
Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna makes her way to speak with media at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, Wednesday September 20, 2017. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld

But George Iny, executive director of the Automobile Protection Association, said Canada should absolutely not take cars from manufacturers for testing. “That would worry us because of the possibility of cheating,” he said. “Definitely you cannot borrow them from a car maker.”

“Other than the optics, (buying cars) is the right thing to do,” said Eli Melnick, owner of Toronto’s Start Auto Electric, in an email. “You cannot ask the manufacturers for a loaner for obvious reasons (can you spell VW?) or even hint to anyone that you’ll be testing vehicles.”

Canada’s process for testing vehicle emissions is nothing new. The department says it’s been purchasing vehicles for testing since 1999, and cars were previously bought through Transport Canada for the same purpose. Marlo Raynolds, McKenna’s chief of staff, has tweeted a list of luxury vehicles he claims were purchased by the former Conservative government for the same reason.

What has changed recently is that Ottawa is now purchasing more vehicles as part of its own investigation into the Volkswagen scandal, which broke in September 2015 when it was revealed the car maker was selling diesel vehicles with “defeat devices” designed to cheat emissions tests."

[agstar77]

Where are the moderators for this forum? This should be a place for respectful discussion, not name calling and derogatory remarks.

[chuckChuck]

For the scientific record CO2 is necessary for life but in excess, increases the greenhouse effect.

Therefore in excess it is considered a pollutant. Check out the Scientific American article on CO2.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-worst-climate-pollution-is-carbon-dioxide/

You guys are grasping at straws with your lame arguments.

Politicians are not the experts in climatology or climate change although there may be a climate scientist in politics somewhere.

In government they have scientific experts who draw on the current research. There are numerous Environment Canada climatologists or experts to advise the minister.

Some you guys need a lesson in how governments work.

[chuckChuck]

upchucky,

you know who the real knuckle dragger is ????

It's a sockboy PM, who picks his cabinet ministers based on whether they have a vagina or not! For cripes sakes, it's the 21st century, and this Prime Minister is still evaluating people by the sex organs they have!

Instead of weighing peoples talents for the positions that need to be filled, he just divides the names based on sex and fills the jobs equally from both lists, whether they a damn "Barbie" or not.

Look at climate change Barbie for example, she's so uneducated, she thinks that carbon in the atmosphere is "pollution", ya, no kidding. What does she think is responsible for plant growth on the planet. Not to mention the idiot incharge(supposedly) of RCA, what about the loser running the MMIW hearing, no experience/no talent, how about that crooked Morneau, filling his pockets with millions of dollars in only a matter of a year and a half, how about the defense minister who lied about his roll in the armed forces, how about the lying women who was in charge of Voting reform, entered the country illegally and gets a job in Trudeau's cabinet, other immigrates who did the same thing actually got kicked out of the country by Chretien of all people,,,,there's more,,the list just keeps going on....

If you need to blow off steam rant on, but it would be more effective if you stick to one issue at a time.

[GDR]

In what way does a legal background qualify you for anything other than legal work. Agree with most she was a poor appointment.

My experience working with lawyers(teachers too actually) on non professional type projects is that no matter what they are right and everyone else is wrong, no need to question anything they say. Really hard to work with those attitudes.

[chuckChuck]

Where are the moderators for this forum? This should be a place for respectful discussion, not name calling and derogatory remarks.

Why start moderating now? This Barbie reference has been going on for weeks and no one has questioned it. Where are Vicki and farm gal? Surely they don't want themselves or their daughters dismissed and referred to as "barbies" or some other sexist name?


I try to stick to debating the issues but sometimes you have to make a point.

[chuckChuck]

In what way does a legal background qualify you for anything other than legal work. Agree with most she was a poor appointment.

My experience working with lawyers(teachers too actually) on non professional type projects is that no matter what they are right and everyone else is wrong, no need to question anything they say. Really hard to work with those attitudes.

If she was on the opposition benches and spoke against a carbon tax nobody on Agriville would refer to her as Barbie. Period. Does Candice Bergen Conservative MP get called a barbie? Nope

Your generalizations are wrong and big egos cross all classes, professions, and political lines.

Just say you disagree with her policy and explain why.

[burnt]

Why start moderating now? This Barbie reference has been going on for weeks and no one has questioned it. Where are Vicki and farm gal? Surely they don't want themselves or their daughters dismissed and referred to as "barbies" or some other sexist name?


I try to stick to debating the issues but sometimes you have to make a point.

You would insult women who see through Climate Barbie's hypocrisy? To the point then, chucky -

Breathe deeply for a few moments before you try to respond there chucky boy!

[chuckChuck]

You would insult women who see through Climate Barbie's hypocrisy? To the point then, chucky -

Breathe deeply for a few moments before you try to respond there chucky boy!

Good thing you have rebel media to tell you how to think. Kinda of explains a lot .

Since when is hypocrisy or double standards or political name calling news in politics? Almost every party has some example of it.

The focuss for many critics of Mckenna seems to be personal sexist attacks. Why focuss on the Minister personally when it is Liberal policy that you don't agree with.

stick to the issues, make your arguments and avoid the personal.

[sofa.king]

What go dept do you work for chucky as it seems you just spew leftard policy and won't answer a question.