Oh Oh Kenney got caught

[Integrity_Farmer]

Jason Kenney Grilled By Liberal MP For Climate Change Views

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/royalwedding/jason-kenney-grilled-by-liberal-mp-for-climate-change-views/vi-AAwUBEx?refvid=AAvfM5k

[dmlfarmer]

I dont think anyone argues against climate change , always has , always will . Just funny to watch the arrogant pricks that think they can control climate , lol

Your right about climate always changing and always will, and I would add for lots of reasons: including solar, volcanic, cyclical, etc etc and ….man!

But I disagree with you saying: "arrogant pricks that think they can control climate." Governments, and organizations are not trying to control climate - they are trying to mitigate man's impact on climate. There is a huge difference. I am not saying we should shut down modern society in the name of climate change - that is ridiculous. But I do believe we should minimize our impact on climate as far as we can. Anyone who disagrees with minimizing man's effects on environment should have to live in the smog of China, or the pollution of India, or have to drink the water of Flint Michigan for a year and before crying that man has no responsibility to mitigate their impact on the environment be it land, water, air, or climate.

Sorry for hijacking this Kenny lovefest, or breaking my promise to myself about commenting ever again on this forum about climate change as I know anything I say will not change anyone's mind or position so why waste the forum's time but caseih claim of CONTROLLING climate is pure propaganda and I had to refute it.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Your right about climate always changing and always will, and I would add for lots of reasons: including solar, volcanic, cyclical, etc etc and ….man!

But I disagree with you saying: "arrogant pricks that think they can control climate." Governments, and organizations are not trying to control climate - they are trying to mitigate man's impact on climate. There is a huge difference. I am not saying we should shut down modern society in the name of climate change - that is ridiculous. But I do believe we should minimize our impact on climate as far as we can. Anyone who disagrees with minimizing man's effects on environment should have to live in the smog of China, or the pollution of India, or have to drink the water of Flint Michigan for a year and before crying that man has no responsibility to mitigate their impact on the environment be it land, water, air, or climate.

Why do you bring up actual physical, dangerous, poisonous, harmful pollution as an argument for supporting climate change? I realise that confusing the two is a well worn tactic that works very well in most circles, but I expected more from you, you are typically very reasonable in your arguments on this topic.

[GALAXIE500]

Luckily no concern of mine. I live in sk . Try and keep up andfor the record i havent been happy since mr devine left

There are diehard NDP'ers and other whining crybabies in this province who still blame Mr. Devine for everything that has happened to them in the last 30 years. Gee what did Lorne do? What did good old Roy do?

Quick answer : cater to unions and back door deals by their friends!

You people in Alberta better wake up and go to the polling station on April 16th.

[Rareearth]

What did Ralph do? Remember the finance minister for the whole of Canada?

[sumdumguy]

What did Ralph do? Remember the finance minister for the whole of Canada?

Ralph, what a dissappointment! I had hoped he woukd be the voice of reason, instead he showed us his true colours.

[Guest]

when the child got in , I thought , man are we lucky to have Ralph . he will keep er straight . what a waste he was . sold out sask years ago . just another pig at the trough

[Guest]

Your right about climate always changing and always will, and I would add for lots of reasons: including solar, volcanic, cyclical, etc etc and ….man!

But I disagree with you saying: "arrogant pricks that think they can control climate." Governments, and organizations are not trying to control climate - they are trying to mitigate man's impact on climate. There is a huge difference. I am not saying we should shut down modern society in the name of climate change - that is ridiculous. But I do believe we should minimize our impact on climate as far as we can. Anyone who disagrees with minimizing man's effects on environment should have to live in the smog of China, or the pollution of India, or have to drink the water of Flint Michigan for a year and before crying that man has no responsibility to mitigate their impact on the environment be it land, water, air, or climate.

Sorry for hijacking this Kenny lovefest, or breaking my promise to myself about commenting ever again on this forum about climate change as I know anything I say will not change anyone's mind or position so why waste the forum's time but caseih claim of CONTROLLING climate is pure propaganda and I had to refute it.

ummm.. climate Barbie said right on the news that she could change climate ???.?
saw it with my own eyes ??

[furrowtickler]

ummm.. climate Barbie said right on the news that she could change climate ???.?
saw it with my own eyes ??

Sad thing is they believe by destroying the wealth creating industries in western Canada they will save a polar bear .... yes they actually believe that nonsense .

[Horse]

That’s interesting horse I’ve kind of thought the media has let Notley and her merry band of thieves have a free ride.

Im not sure what media you got your news from but all I hear is kenny,kenny,kenny,thats from edmonton station dont know what kind of a lovein is going on in calgary,
Please tell me what the nds have done that is so bad ? Min wage,why shouldnt some one get 15$/hr to serve coffee to some kid driving a company pickup in the oil field looking at wells getting $40/hr.
Wages are high thanks to the previous gov,the nds havent raised the wages to any civel servant yet, but teachers 100 grand nurses,not sure but doing ok, what should the nds have done cut wages,staff???
Carbon tax ,well a tax is a tax,should have mabey put in sales tax,very much the same results,but wouldnt have made anyone happy either,not sure where you would get funding to run gov,cant take from the rich,the poor dont have any,corporations will leave if take from them???? oil workers want big money everyone wants gov to provide but noone wants to pay. Please tell me your solution. I sure hope you dont think putting the same old boys club back in is the answer.

[blackjack]

Hey horse I’m not going to change your mind I get it your happy paying the bureaucrats of Alberta the highest wages of any jurisdiction in Canada.She is only 40 billion in the hole as of now in 4 years if your ok with that what can one say . Some people love socialism I for believe in those Albertans that helped grow Alberta in the past century to one of most envious places in the world to live.

[dmlfarmer]

Why do you bring up actual physical, dangerous, poisonous, harmful pollution as an argument for supporting climate change? I realise that confusing the two is a well worn tactic that works very well in most circles, but I expected more from you, you are typically very reasonable in your arguments on this topic.

Okay AF I will bite and answer your question.
IF science is right and a global warming will lead to more and bigger forest fires because of drought, winds, and diseased and dead trees from unchecked insect infestations, then you tell those who lost family and property and had to live through the smoke this past summer in California, BC, Colorado, and Alberta that hey, those forest fires are not nearly as bad as if you had to live in the smog of China.

IF science is right and we will see bigger hurricanes and more tornados, then you tell the people of Puerto Rico, and the Carolinas that hey so there is some destruction and you had no power for a few months and a lot of pig farm lagoons overflowed or washed out but hey that is nothing compared to living in the pollution in India.

IF science is right and we will see more intense storm systems such as Nebraska just experienced, then tell the farmers there that they should not complain about livestock deaths, lost farm yards, grain in store etc because it is actually just fresh water and it is not like if you lived in Flint where you can't drink the water.

AF, you can downplay the effects of climate change all you want and say its effects will not be dangerous and should not be compared to other man made problems, but I will counter that you are already paying for real problems that science says are effects of climate change like higher taxes to fight bigger and more forest fires and if you buy any insurance, premiums have gone up after each natural disaster whether you are to accept climate change has played a role or not, and that includes not only for property loss but even crop insurance.

And you and your children will be paying a lot more in the future but monetarily and socially IF science is right and we do see ocean levels rise and displace those living in low lying coastal areas. Already Miami is raising sea wall heights in a number of areas and New York is looking at spending 10 billion to build a sea wall to protect lower Manhattan. Think immigration demand is bad now? I wonder what it will be like if ocean level rise and storm surge increase displace the hundreds of millions living in third world deltas.

[Robertbarlage]

Funny all the third world country’s I’ve been to the ocean has not gone up in 100 years the beaches have always been the same? Only 1st world problems? Fires **** in California 20 years ago there wasn’t any houses on the hills and there were fires no one cared

[Robertbarlage]

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Okay AF I will bite and answer your question.
IF science is right and a global warming will lead to more and bigger forest fires because of drought, winds, and diseased and dead trees from unchecked insect infestations, then you tell those who lost family and property and had to live through the smoke this past summer in California, BC, Colorado, and Alberta that hey, those forest fires are not nearly as bad as if you had to live in the smog of China.

IF science is right and we will see bigger hurricanes and more tornados, then you tell the people of Puerto Rico, and the Carolinas that hey so there is some destruction and you had no power for a few months and a lot of pig farm lagoons overflowed or washed out but hey that is nothing compared to living in the pollution in India.

IF science is right and we will see more intense storm systems such as Nebraska just experienced, then tell the farmers there that they should not complain about livestock deaths, lost farm yards, grain in store etc because it is actually just fresh water and it is not like if you lived in Flint where you can't drink the water.

AF, you can downplay the effects of climate change all you want and say its effects will not be dangerous and should not be compared to other man made problems, but I will counter that you are already paying for real problems that science says are effects of climate change like higher taxes to fight bigger and more forest fires and if you buy any insurance, premiums have gone up after each natural disaster whether you are to accept climate change has played a role or not, and that includes not only for property loss but even crop insurance.

And you and your children will be paying a lot more in the future but monetarily and socially IF science is right and we do see ocean levels rise and displace those living in low lying coastal areas. Already Miami is raising sea wall heights in a number of areas and New York is looking at spending 10 billion to build a sea wall to protect lower Manhattan. Think immigration demand is bad now? I wonder what it will be like if ocean level rise and storm surge increase displace the hundreds of millions living in third world deltas.

You are a smart guy, with access to the internet, you can do you own research to see the trends in tornadoes, hurricanes, sea level rise acceleration(remember that acceleration is the key word, the rise part was never in question), droughts, wind, pine beetles, forest fires etc. You might be surprised at the results vs. the rhetoric we hear everyday.

I was just suggesting that for the sake of credibility, that you don't try to justify the war on CO2 by trying to confuse CO2 with actual harmful pollutants, most independent thinking people are now informed enough to differentiate between the two, and no longer fall for such tactics, and tune out once that is part of the message.