Chuck, evidence that your side has lost the debate in one image

[AlbertaFarmer5]

A rather strange and probably flawed conclusion you're drawing AF5. Think back to when the internet was a new thing, or an iPhone was just invented - interest peaked, often to a frenzied state. Now years later they are an accepted part of life declining "interest" in the phenomena but usage has never been higher .

Yes, I see what you mean about interest in the I Phone peaking early, then declining over time, looks just like the global warming chart above.

Or am I looking at it upside down? No, on closer inspection, I'm almost certain that interest has been increasing, that really looks nothing like the declining graph of interest in global warming.

[checking]

Well,well,well.

The CO2 supply management system is breaking down the Just in Trouble government of Canada. The economic drivers finally start to trump the stupidity of a carbon tax money grab goal.

Now should come the cc. and gas studies of how to speed up the carbon cycle so that ilk can feel good about saving the planet.

[chuckChuck]

The Saskatchewan government doesn't favour a carbon tax but they are still talking about carbon capture and storage and a plan to reduce carbon emissions. 50% renewable electricity by 2030.

Saskatchewan has not released a cost estimate of their plan but they purposely misinterpreted the the U of R study on the cost of a carbon tax by accounting for the tax as a loss to the economy but conveniently did not account for how the tax revenue could be spent.

If an RM takes their tax dollars and spend it on road building it is not lost to the economy. But Saskatchewan did not account for how carbon tax revenue could be spent.

They are counting on the fact that most of the sheep are easily manipulated and don't understand the issue.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

The Saskatchewan government doesn't favour a carbon tax but they are still talking about carbon capture and storage and a plan to reduce carbon emissions. 50% renewable electricity by 2030.

Saskatchewan has not released a cost estimate of their plan but they purposely misinterpreted the the U of R study on the cost of a carbon tax by accounting for the tax as a loss to the economy but conveniently did not account for how the tax revenue could be spent.

If an RM takes their tax dollars and spend it on road building it is not lost to the economy. But Saskatchewan did not account for how carbon tax revenue could be spent.

They are counting on the fact that most of the sheep are easily manipulated and don't understand the issue.

And what does that have to do with the original premise of the thread? Or how is that in any way a response to the UN survey which shows that people no longer care about climate change?

Please offer some evidence that the PR campaign you have been so vociferously working on has been succeeding in gaining public support for your theory. I went looking and keep finding declining support, please prove me wrong.

And yet you wonder why no one bothers to take the time to respond to your posts with relevant information. You respond with more irrelevant information rather than address any questions directed to you.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

They are counting on the fact that most of the sheep are easily manipulated and don't understand the issue.

Truer words have not been spoken. But surprisingly, at least to myself, the sheep stubbornly refuse to be manipulated. Whether they understand the issue or not, they have resoundingly rejected the alarmist, and continue to show it with their votes and their wallets. Your side had all the advantages and allies I listed above, plus could claim the moral high ground, and started with a gullible public who knew nothing about climate, CO2, glaciers, sea level etc. You controlled the entire narrative, and could write and rewrite history.

This should have been so easy to win.

Now we are supposed to believe that the same grossly incompetent group lacking in any morals or ethics who couldn't even manage the PR campaign, should be trusted to manipulate, let alone comprehend the global climate? The actions and results so far do not instill confidence.

[fjlip]

The Saskatchewan government doesn't favour a carbon tax but they are still talking about carbon capture and storage and a plan to reduce carbon emissions. 50% renewable electricity by 2030.
They are counting on the fact that most of the sheep are easily manipulated and don't understand the issue.

They are publicly saying those points for your type to hear, privately they think it is all bullshit. Wait for it when the public opinion turns...happening already.

[chuckChuck]

And what does that have to do with the original premise of the thread? Or how is that in any way a response to the UN survey which shows that people no longer care about climate change?

Please offer some evidence that the PR campaign you have been so vociferously working on has been succeeding in gaining public support for your theory. I went looking and keep finding declining support, please prove me wrong.

And yet you wonder why no one bothers to take the time to respond to your posts with relevant information. You respond with more irrelevant information rather than address any questions directed to you.

Do I need to spell it out for you? You can claim all you want on who has won the debate. All provinces still have plans or are making plans to reduce emissions. If you think that is a victory for your side you are delusional. Only one Conservative MP voted against supporting the Paris climate accord in 2017. Another sign of your great victory? LOL

I thought you said you are too busy to post? Seems like you have plenty of time.
Why not use it to post some peer reviewed science to counter NOAA, NASA a the American Meterological Society? Too busy right! LOL

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I can dictate voice to text on my blackberry while driving tractor. Reading and copying and pasting from papers on the same phone under the same conditions isn't as convenient.

Can you comment on the UN study which finds climate change is people's last priority? Please discredited their findings.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So, I offer multiple credible pieces of evidence that the public no longer supports your alarmist views. You counter by showing that unaccountable politicians are still wasting tax dollars on meaningless platitudes, which is one good reason why the public is losing faith in the entire scam. Bureaucrats obviously are not representative of the general population.

Can you address the publics falling support? Or offer evidence to the contrary?

[burnt]

Does anyone on this board actually know chuck chuck, as in if he is an actual human being?

Like, where he lives? Farms?

Or might he be a bot or face for a propaganda group?