O'Toole declares 'the debate is over' on climate change, but his party's grassroots d

[15444]

You dont have to believe in a thing to articulate a policy for it. The motion should have been about crafting the policy, not whether you believe in the cause or not.

This. 100%. Conservatives lost the entire PR battle for the next election because of it. And majority of them are too dumb to realize it. Just told everyone else in the country that the Conservatives haven't changed one iota in their policy vision.

[Hamloc]

This. 100%. Conservatives lost the entire PR battle for the next election because of it. And majority of them are too dumb to realize it. Just told everyone else in the country that the Conservatives haven't changed one iota in their policy vision.

Has it occurred to anybody the delegate from Quebec who put up the motion was a Liberal and got the result he intended? Every news article focuses on this topic, nothing else about the convention.

[bucket]

Has it occurred to anybody the delegate from Quebec who put up the motion was a Liberal and got the result he intended? Every news article focuses on this topic, nothing else about the convention.

To be sure , had the conservatives adopted that motion, it would not have made the news.

I guess at this point any news about the conservatives helps.

I think O'Toole has some tough sledding ahead of him...if he wants to be Prime Minister.

[SASKFARMER]

It was done and should have been pulled from the Agenda. MSM is loving this they have ammo to help Trudeau. Guys like Chuck are all over this.

[sumdumguy]

O’Toole ain’t gonna do anything. He is already finding excuses for being a dud. They should have been ready for the climate change scenario and had a positive spin ready for retort. Where are the brains in this party?

[chuckChuck]

Thanks for the well deserved dressing down. Guilty on all counts.

We are currently reaping the rewards of science losing all credibility thanks to the likes of the Micheal Manns of the world, and the blind followers such as Chuck. We have a large portion of the population so (rightfully) skeptical of the lack of scientific integrity thanks entirely to the corrupt and fraudulent global warming issue, that when these same folks started preaching about a pandemic, they had no credibility at all.
The same people, the same political organizations, the same media, are now using the same tried ( and failed) fear mongering control tactics to sell the pandemic science.

They may very well be right this time, but they wasted their ammunition fighting the climate change battle, and now wonder why people won't listen to them. This outcome was as predictable as the sun rising in the east. Even with this relatively (thankfully) minor pandemic, the consequences have been dire, it has cost lives, imagine how bad it will be when even bigger threats come along.

Just look at Agriville, with very few exceptions, it is the same people on the same side of each debate.

They have learned no lessons. And their efforts to control the media and narrative and to declare what they consider fake news etc. instead of allowing open scientific debate has only added fuel to the fire.

So how is it an engineer has lost all faith in science? That would make most of your work unreliable! Should we trust engineers? And did you also lose faith in David Schindler's science?

The reality is a very large majority of canadians across the political spectrum do support the science of climate change. It's only a very small group of politically motivated people like you and your friends who deny humans have played a very large role in climate change.

As Erin O'toole said, the debate about human caused climate change is over. And apparently nearly 50% of Conservative delegates agreed

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So how is it an engineer has lost all faith in science? That would make most of your work unreliable! Should we trust engineers? And did you also lose faith in David Schindler's science?

The reality is a very large majority of canadians across the political spectrum do support the science of climate change. It's only a very small group of politically motivated people like you and your friends who deny humans have played a very large role in climate change.

As Erin O'toole said, the debate about human caused climate change is over. And apparently nearly 50% of Conservative delegates agreed

So instead of looking in the mirror and accepting responsibility for a situation you have had a big part in perpetuating, and now excaberating, you instead put words in my mouth and continue to make the preposterous and anti scientific statement about a debate being over.

In order for a debate to be over, all of the evidence possible must already have been presented. Do you think all of the evidence for and against the theory of global warming has been gathered analyzed and presented already? Tomorrows weather data let alone that from a century from now could not possibly be relevant to the debate?

[jazz]

In order for a debate to be over, all of the evidence possible must already have been presented.

Maybe as a fellow engineer you can explain to chuck the difference between science based on hypothesis with real data, observation and experimentation vs projection modelling.

I dont thing he understand either of those concepts and how much error is added to the projections as they are pushed outward in time. We are talking about 2deg here and the error bands on those models has to be approaching double digits because they are working off assumptions of inputs we have no way to even measure. Assumptions based on assumptions. We already nuked our economy based on false covid models, why would we double down on that? Last year at this time Sask produced a model showing 30,000 deaths.

Science has joined the media and govt as another untrusted group corrupted by money, personality and politics.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

In credit to the vast majority of bona fide scientists in most other fields, most of the corruption, exaggeration and anti-science messages come from the media and political types, not from the original work.
If you read an alarmist headline as posted by Chuck, then read the original paper, the two are often almost unrelated.
The outright frauds such as Micheal Mann etc are very much a minority. The just steal all the media spotlight, and it taints every other scientist and the genuine scientific fields.

[dmlfarmer]

In credit to the vast majority of bona fide scientists in most other fields, most of the corruption, exaggeration and anti-science messages come from the media and political types, not from the original work.
If you read an alarmist headline as posted by Chuck, then read the original paper, the two are often almost unrelated.
The outright frauds such as Micheal Mann etc are very much a minority. The just steal all the media spotlight, and it taints every other scientist and the genuine scientific fields.

Interesting you use Micheal Mann as an example of "outright frauds". There has been 7 investigations by both US and Uk governments into the hockey stick graph and not one of them found wrong doing. Micheal Mann himself has been the subject of investigations by Penn State and the National Science Foundation Inspector General and neither found him guilty of wrong doing or fraud. Mann filed libel suits in the US 9 years ago that are still working their way through the courts and to this point the defendants have not provided any evidence that his work was fraudulent, but they are claiming innocent only on free speech grounds. Granted, his case against Tim Ball was thrown out of court in Canada, not because it found his work was proven to be fraudulent but because Mann did not meet a deadline for providing requested information.

So i would be interested in the proof you must have to publicly claim Mann is an "outright fraud"

Oh, and BTW on Jan 22 of this year, Mann asked Washington DC Superior Court for a summary judgement because the defendants have failed to put forward any evidence challenging the validity of his science.