The QP clip: Oliver and Kent defend Conservative record

The exchange you can’t miss from this afternoon’s Question Period

by Nick Taylor-Vaisey

 

This afternoon, a lineup of NDP MPs—Jamie Nicholls, Claude Gravelle, Peter Julian, and Megan Leslie—went after Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver for two reasons: his support for changes to the public consultation process that accompanies applications for energy projects; and recent comments he made, and then backed away from, about the science behind anthropogenic climate change.

Oliver responded to Nicholls and Gravelle, and reaffirmed support for the consultation process. Environment Minister Peter Kent addressed Julian and Leslie, and reaffirmed the government’s record on fighting climate change.




Browse

The QP clip: Oliver and Kent defend Conservative record

  1. Climate Blame believers calling themselves liberals are just heartless bullies who threaten our children.
    I thought liberals challenged authority, especially an authority that’s been condemning their kids to the greenhouse gas ovens for 27 years of a “maybe” crisis. It’s as if you believers wanted this misery to be real? Why? Do you believers just hate yourselves and all of Humanity and want to drag the rest of us down with you? Why would you issue CO2 death threats to billions of helpless children so easily and with such childish glee? You fear mongers have bullied our children and another 27 years of your needless CO2 panic of a “maybe” crisis is unsustainable. You are all Reefer Madness Clowns for the history books and rest assured that even Bush didn’t threaten my children. You climate blamers make neocons proud. I’d say stop scaring my kids but even they are laughing and the only crisis you remaining doomers have to worry about is how you’re grand kids will explain your flippant fear mongering. Climate change was your Iraq War, another war without an enemy.

    • Thanks, but I’d rather believe actual climate scientists, more than 96% of whom agree that global warming is happening, is caused by human activities, and is going to get much worse. I suppose by claiming they are wrong, or that there is some big anti-carbon conspiracy you can imagine yourself smarter than them, but in reality the ones issuing our children”CO2 death threats” are the politicians, business interests, and ignorant people like yourself that will keep us from really addressing the very real problem of global warming, and threatening our children’s future.

      • “So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

        Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.”

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/

        • Bwa ha ha
          You use the blog of an ex-TV Weatherman to refute actual real world figures. Now I know not to take you seriously

          • Thank you for a typical fact-free post. Insults aren’t facts.

          • Sources provide facts and your source is poor, very poor.

          • I await a fact from you. Amaze me. Track down your fact free 98% claim somewhere and post a believable reference. Break out of your fact free AGW comfort zone.

    • Yeah, people who want clean air, water and soil are the very worst. I, for one, want to live in my own dirt and filth because that’s so wonderful and healthy.

      That’s why we should totally just let everyone keep spewing waste, filth, dirt and corruption into the environment. Cause wanting to clean it up means you are a horrible person.

      • I agree. Which is why biomass mystifies me. It is filthy and really dirty compared to the natural gas power plants canceled by the Liberals.

        And I love Eagles. I hate to see so many slaughtered by the Wind Turbines erected by the Liberals.

        And Germany and Japan are shutting down nuclear plants to burn more coal.

        Why did environmentalists force them to do that?

        And ethanol is pretty dirty. More volatile organic compounds than regular gasoline. Lousy fuel economy too. And all that food burned in cars makes me sad.

        And did you know they are cutting down millions of acres of trees to burn in power plants in the US and Europe?

    • While you are quite happy to pile the responsibility and costs for dealing with our mess onto those children you claim to care about. Another selfish person with their head in the sand who thinks others should pick up their tab once they’ve gone.
      A very modern conservative worldview indeed, wants everything now except the bill.

      • I don’t want to pay to have Eagles slaughtered by wind turbines. Or for Germany and Japan to burn more coal because of the green freak out called Fukishima.

        Tripling the price of electricity is so cruel for the poor and aged. Why do you greenies hate the poor and elderly?

        • Are you okay? Because none of that word vomit makes sense and I’m worried you might not be well.

          • or a paid poster more likely

          • Judging by their ability in logic and understanding where press reports come from and how they are disseminated, I would doubt that even the PMO would pay such a poorly informed person.

          • Still waiting for facts.

          • He doesn’t deny the trend is flat for 16 years. He just whines about it.

          • ha I see the science is lost on shills like you.
            So the planet has continents and seas, you know water..
            God this is hard.

          • Flat line. So called warming isn’t. Deader than a Monty Python parrot.

          • What’s the point if you can’t understand actual data.
            It’s like trying to teach a pig to sing.
            Cheerio ignorant water carrier

          • I suspect you know more about singing pigs than you do about science.

          • Nah I actually do science daily and you’re the only falsetto I know

          • I’m just sad so many people who pretend to be environmentalists like slaughtering eagles.

            “On 12 January 2012, at the First Scientific Congress on Wind Energy and Wildlife Conservation in Jerez de la Frontera, Spain, the Spanish Society of Ornithology (SEO/Birdlife) made public its estimate that, yearly, Spain’s 18,000 wind turbines may be killing 6 to 18 million birds and bats”

  2. It stopped warming 15 years ago. Even Reuters is admitting it.

    “(Reuters) – Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.

    Often focused on century-long trends, most climate models failed to predict that the temperature rise would slow, starting around 2000. Scientists are now intent on figuring out the causes and determining whether the respite will be brief or a more lasting phenomenon.

    Getting this right is essential for the short and long-term planning of governments and businesses ranging from energy to construction, from agriculture to insurance. Many scientists say they expect a revival of warming in coming years.

    Theories for the pause include that deep oceans have taken up more heat with the result that the surface is cooler than expected, that industrial pollution in Asia or clouds are blocking the sun, or that greenhouse gases trap less heat than previously believed.”

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/04/16/climate-change-skeptics/

      • Reuters is a news service, not the Daily Mail The Economist is also not the Daily Mail. The facts are finally coming out at mainstream publications.

        “There are few things sadder than the “climate denier.” He ignores the data and neglects the latest science. His rhetoric and policy proposals are dangerously disconnected from reality.

        He can’t recalibrate to take account of the latest evidence because, well, he’s a denier.

        The new climate deniers are the liberals who, despite their obsession with climate change, have managed to miss the biggest story in climate science, which is that there hasn’t been any global warming for about a decade and a half.

        “Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar,” The Economist magazine writes. “The world added roughly 100 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010.

        That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, no more warming.

        The Economist has been decidedly alarmist on global warming through the years, so it deserves credit for pausing to consider why the warming trend it expected to continue has mysteriously stalled out.

        http://www.newsmax.com/RichLowry/Economist-Pause-Global-Warming/2013/04/01/id/497322

        • You really have no idea about how the news is spread via the media have you, well beyond that which you have learned from your oh so wrong source of information. Watt being the guy who said he would accept the findings of the Koch Bros funded Mueller (skeptic) study.

          Yeah he lied about that too, so I have to ask Watt else is he lieing about as well?

          • I leave religion to shills like you. Rather than press reports let’s deal with science not how journos interpret it. Show me where any of your so called sceptics have written a paper following research that actually has data to support you, otherwise you have nothing.

          • I prefer to laugh at your cult and use the data from your own cult leaders to mock their stupidity.

          • And yet the trend is still flat. And the predictions were it to be .3C warmer.

            And it isn’t .3C warmer.

            It isn’t a real science if the scary end of the world predictions are just bull****.

          • Right, just like it was flat for the last 40 years, yet somehow it’s warmer than it was 40 years ago. Strange how that works.
            Sadly, you’re both wrong that the trend is flat, and that it was predicted to be .3C.
            For laughs why don’t you tell us what you think “climate” is and how one would determine a climate trend.
            Maybe you could also tell us: if the first week in April is as warm as the last would that lead you to conclude that the trend is flat and therefore you disproved the theory that May, June, July or August will be warmer?

          • But it wasn’t flat from 1910 to 1940. And it is acknowledged that some mystery cause did that. There wasn’t enough extra CO2 for it to be AGW.

            And that was a .7C increase.

            Explain it.

          • Poor lil’ Billy still doesn’t get it. If you want understand climate don’t consult an economist, a radio weather reader, or a news magazine message board – read the published scientific literature.

            So answer my questions, Billy. If your cherry-picked short-term temperatures demonstrate that the climate isn’t warming now, why wouldn’t they also demonstrate that the climate wasn’t warming in 1977, 1986 or 2002 despite the fact that it did warm? And do you believe that if the first week in April is as warm as the last the trend is flat and therefore you’ve disproved the
            theory that May, June, July or August will be warmer?

          • 15 years isn’t short term. As for why it has warmed, there are many answers.

            One obvious one is natural warming after the end of the LIA. Similar warming occurred during the MWP, Roman Optimum and Minoan Warming. There were no SUVs in those warming periods.

            Another explanation is increased sunshine.

            Martin Wild has written numerous peer-reviewed articles about the cyclic nature of bright sunshine.

            http://i51.tinypic.com/eb3pmb.jpg

            http://i55.tinypic.com/34qk01z.jpg

            There is also the increase in sunshine because of clean air efforts.

            http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/more-sunshine-in-the-netherlands/

            But scientifically it is important to explain the steeper/longer warming from 1910 to 1940 because CO2 as an explanation is incorrect.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1909/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1909/to:1943/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1977/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1943/to:1977/trend

            The “simple” CO2 explanation is for simpletons. Huge amounts of CO2 from 1998 to 2013 have done nothing.

          • “15 years isn’t short term.”

            I see now why you evade the question, ” what do you think “climate” is and how one would determine a climate trend” – you don’t know what climate is. In fact 15 years isn’t only short-term on a climactic scale, it’s 1/2 the standard averaging period for determining climate norms.

            I can’t figure out if the rest of the non-sequiter is deliberate or you simply can’t understand two simple questions, so I’ll try again:

            If your cherry-picked short-term temperatures demonstrate that the
            climate isn’t warming now, why wouldn’t they also demonstrate that the
            climate wasn’t warming in 1977, 1986 or 2002 despite the fact that it did
            warm? And do you believe that if the first week in April is as warm
            as the last the trend is flat and therefore you’ve disproved the
            theory that May, June, July or August will be warmer?

          • Go ahead and show me a climate paper that takes an 18 year trend and predicts future warming to occur at the same rate. I won’t be holding my breath.

            Now, why can’t you answer these two simple questions?:

            If your cherry-picked short-term temperatures demonstrate that the
            climate isn’t warming now, why wouldn’t they also demonstrate that the
            climate wasn’t warming in 1977, 1986 or 2002 despite the fact that it did
            warm? And do you believe that if the first week in April is as warm
            as the last the trend is flat and therefore you’ve disproved the
            theory that May, June, July or August will be warmer?

          • Here is the official IPCC projections which predict more warming than 1980-1998.

            http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-spm-5.html

            “1910 to 1940 is 30 years long. But your AGW cult never likes to talk about that 30 year warming period.”

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1909/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1909/to:1943/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1977/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1943/to:1977/trend

            Please explain the cause.

          • I apparently should have been more explicit in my request: Go ahead and show me a climate paper that takes an 18 year trend and
            uses it to predict that future warming to occur at the same rate.

            “Please explain the cause.”

            Do you not bother to read the answers? Can’t recognize a link? What’s the problem billy?

            These questions shouldn’t be a problem for you to answer. There simply a function of your own “logic”

            If your cherry-picked short-term temperatures demonstrate that the
            climate isn’t warming now, why wouldn’t they also demonstrate that the
            climate wasn’t warming in 1977, 1986 or 2002 despite the fact that it did
            warm? And do you believe that if the first week in April is as warm
            as the last the trend is flat and therefore you’ve disproved the
            theory that May, June, July or August will be warmer?

            Why can’t you answer them?

          • The IPCC graph does exactly that. It predicts future warming based on the 1980-1998 trend. And IPCC AR4 is a collection of papers.

            “1910 to 1940 is 30 years long. But your AGW cult never likes to talk about that 30 year warming period.”

          • “The IPCC graph does exactly that. It predicts future warming based on the 1980-1998 trend.”

            Uh, no. From the link: “Solid lines are multi-model global averages of surface warming (relative to 1980–1999)”

            You might want to look up the word “relative” in the dictionary. The graph is projected anomalies with the 1980-1999 period being used as the baseline. It has nothing to do with “predict(ing) future warming based on the 1980-1998 trend.”

            “1910 to 1940 is 30 years long. But your AGW cult never likes to talk about that 30 year warming period.”

            Still haven’t figured out that the red text indicates a link? How many times will it take for you to figure it out?

          • I think it is quite clear that a bunch of con artists got together and drew a line through the 1980 to 1998 warming trend and then drew a few lines higher etc and pretend they were based on computer models.

            As for links to skeptical con artist central, no thanks. They’ve been caught lying hundreds of times.

            But you go ahead. Explain the 30 year trend 1910 to 1940, explain why that 30 year period is not climate while a much shorter period 1980 to 1998 is.

            I love it when you con artists deny 15 years isn’t climate because it isn’t 30 years long and then you can’t explain 1910 to 1930.

          • I think it is quite clear that a bunch of con artists got together and
            drew a line through the 1980 to 1998 warming trend and then drew a few
            lines higher etc and pretend they were based on computer models.”

            Heh.
            It isn’t that you couldn’t understand a simple graph and the explanatory text below it, it’s just that there’s a massive worldwide conspiracy involving countless scientists, institutions and scientific journals. Of course. You show up for your first day of work writing code, and they show you the photos they have of you with prostitutes and pictures of your kids walking to school, then explain how everything will be fine as long as you keep your mouth shut, cash your giant paychecks, and spend your workdays playing Angry Birds.

            But wouldn’t it be (slightly) less embarrassing to admit you have a reading comprehension problem?

            And, of course all that published science that is cited at skepticalscience.com is part of this elaborate far-reaching hoax.

            So, let’s go to Kooksville and pretend all of this is all true, and move on to the following questions:

            If your cherry-picked short-term temperatures demonstrate that the
            climate isn’t warming now, why wouldn’t they also demonstrate that the
            climate wasn’t warming in 1977, 1986 or 2002 despite the fact that it did
            warm? And do you believe that if the first week in April is as warm
            as the last the trend is flat and therefore you’ve disproved the
            theory that May, June, July or August will be warmer?

          • They cabal of climate scientists made predictions. They were wrong.

            The cult that supports them won’t admit it,

            They are deniers. And boring ones at that.

            Denier: “Go to Skanky Science. They have argument that proves temperatures aren’t really flat …. I don’t understand it, and can’t really describe it, but its kind of laie Mannian Math … totally made up.”

            Losers.

    • “… citing among others Richard Tol, an authority in climate change…”

      Once you read that, and learn that Tol is in fact an economist, there’s not much point in reading further.
      I guess “Social scientist joins list of sceptics” wouldn’t have been as good a headline.

      • Why would anyone listen to an economist when the so-called fix for global warming is to spend trillions (which no one has) on a problem that doesn’t exist?

        What part of “among others” didn’t you understand?

        • Yes, why would one listen to an economist’s opinion on climate science(I know you listen to whomever who tells you what you want to hear)?

          “What part of “among others” didn’t you understand?”

          Nothing. I’m sure you could cobble together lots of social scientists who have an opinion contrary to climate experts. Just show me where they’ve published papers backing up their mouths.

          • If people with degrees in Physics or Math suggests spending a trillion dollars to “fix” natural variations in climate, they are acting as economists and proving they have no idea what damage taking a trillion dollars out of the health budget would do. So I don’t pay attention to Hansen (trained in Physics/Math/Astronomy) for example. Climatologists have no training in accountancy of economics, yet they are forever suggesting we completely destroy out economy to fix natural fluctuations in climate.

            And, as it turns out, the most prominent AGW cult leaders can’t predict climate either.

          • “If people with degrees in Physics or Math suggests spending a trillion dollars to “fix” natural variations in climate,”

            they don’t

            “they are acting as economists”

            they aren’t

            ” they are forever suggesting we completely destroy out economy”

            they aren’t

            ” to fix natural fluctuations in climate”

            they aren’t

    • Man, I always get my scientific data from opinion pieces too. Those scientists, always publishing opinion pieces where they document evidence, employ empiricism, analyze data and form hypothesis.

      • Very perceptive. Hansen is in the news a lot exclaiming about coal and death trains. And so many others claiming the world will come to an end if we don’t squander trillions on bird chopping windmills.

  3. “the government’s record on fighting climate change” really? what record??

  4. Tory Senators and MPs had recently had trouble filling out forms of much less complexity than this form and complained of it. These were for residency, expenses and election expenditure though. Feeding at the trough is so much harder to justify than democratic involvement of the population. I guess that’s why the latter is made more difficult.
    I guess the question is are you smarter than a Conservative bagman?

  5. Yesterday was Earth Day and what is the Government doing??? Trying to pollute it..these pipelines are not need, not wanted and not warranted. Not only willl a leak create havoc with our water…it will kill wildlife, fish and whatever else you can call it. STOP TRYING TO KILL OUR PLANET!!!!! START LISTENING TO THE PEOPLE NOT THE POLITICS!!! STUFF YOUR IDEA OF THE PIPELINE..ENOUGH B.S. ALREADY!!!

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *