45

The gas-station gambit having collapsed into yet another lamentable cock-up…


 

…teams of Tory kids in yellow T-shirts have fanned out across downtown Ottawa to hand out post cards critiquing the Dion carbon tax thingie. How old-fashioned. We will have more shortly.


 

The gas-station gambit having collapsed into yet another lamentable cock-up…

  1. Aww I haven’t seen them yet… maybe they should have them dispensing at the gas pumps… almost as rich as all the Conservative bulk mail I get at home from out-of-riding MPs.

  2. I find it hard to believe the Tories have managed to recruit genuine “youth”. Sure these aren’t 50 somethings dressed in cutoffs and bandannas?

  3. I wish this government would stop acting like it’s in opposition and actually GOVERN. Do they not know they’re in power?

    I wish the media would hold them more accountable too. Say, like, asking a question such as, “you do realize the liberals cannot impose gas taxes given they’re not the ruling party?” or “as the governing party of Canada how do you propose to assist Canadians with higher fuel costs?”

    I’ve been thinking for the past year of buying a new car. This weekend we spent time looking at hybrids. Funny thing, NO hybrids available. Ford Escape is on back order and if you want one, it has to be sent to the factory with the specifics you’d like. No Saturn Vue Hybrids, no Malibus on the lots. If the government was concerned about the economy and the environment and the 2600 GM jobs lost, they could, you know, maybe sit down with the people at GM and say, “we’ll work with you change the plant to one that can make hybrid vehicles as there’s a huge demand for them.” so the jobs get kept, the environment gets cleaner and it looks like they care.

    But no, their policy is to constantly attack Dion even though he’s only the opposition leader.

    What a joke. And an embarassment.

  4. I finally figured it out, Stephen Harper is making a mockumentary about parliament, but to avoid paying scale hasn’t told the other actors.

  5. Hey, I haven’t seen the kids walking around town yet, but the t-shirts look neat.

    Where can I buy one to wear when I’m filling up my car at the gas station?

  6. Just wait Brian. I’m sure some oil company is thinking of running these shurts and running with the new ‘Splotchy’ mascot any moment now…

  7. Quick question Paul. (Apologies. This should be on the previous thread but you mentioned cleaning it out…)

    I understand that it is legit to announce ads that they will not pay to place commercially, thereby taking advantage of the free coverage.

    My question is this. If the ad runs without any discussion surrounding it, so just run on it’s own, like this, is that legit?

    (It runs after the paid for ad)

  8. Sorry, the link didn’t work. Go here and on the right under video, click on The Conservative Party of Canada, advertisement one.

    Thanks

  9. “in Canada, as in the United States, “negative advertising works.”

    “Negative ads are crafted in the best dramatic tradition: they contain characterization(implicit or explicit), plot and conflict.”

    “Simply put, negative information is more powerful in crystallizing decisions than positive information”
    (from the 1992 report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform as presented by Warren Kinsella in his book War Room)

    Looks like the Conservatives read the book.

    The beauty of this particular strategy and as Kinsella touches on in both his books is that the Tories don’t have to go far to make Dion his own worst enemy because I’m pretty sure that nothing works better than using your opponents own words, actions, and track record when developing an ad.

    Who are we kidding? Canadians love this stuff…. not just a week ago the MSM must know that also or they wouldn’t react so defensively and call these “attack ads”. Now that the Bernier/Couillard isn’t being lapped up as furiously as anticipated, time to move on I guess

  10. It’s truly heartwarming to see the youth of the nation come together in the cause of anti-environmentalism!

  11. Having seen the postcard, I can state that “critique” is far to generous a description of what it’s trying to do. It’s a collection of clippings laid out to look like they’re from a wide variety of sources, although in fact there are only three: a Sun Media editorial, an articly from the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation and a quote from NDP leader Jack Layton, who must be very proud to be in such company.

  12. Excellent. Steve, can you break that down a bit more schematically? I only got a copy of the French translation of the postcard so I can’t trace the quotes very well.

  13. “Yet another” slice of anti-Conservative spin/smear by “yet another” Paul Wells article behind “yet another” camouflaged duck blind of so-called journalistic objectivity.
    Why doesn’t he simply get it over with and simply run for the red Liberals in the next go ’round!

  14. The Dion Gas Tax is bad for Canadians!

  15. Oddly, “Camouflaged Duck Blind” was the name of a band I led in high school.

  16. The Dion Gas Tax is bad for Canadians!

    So *that’s* what caused my fever and vomiting today.

  17. Yeh what did you play clarinet?!
    LOL!

  18. Hey, if the Liberals didn’t come out with this ridiculous tax proposal in the first place…

  19. Yes, because sensible and principled plans to fight climate change just. won’t. do.

  20. “Yes, because sensible and principled plans to fight climate change just. won’t. do.”

    Good point Mrs.Dion.

    Funny how it wasn’t so sensible and principled a couple of months ago when Mr.Dion opposed it.

    This country will never improve until stupidity hurts.

    Although some of Wells prose…..

  21. Some simple math:

    Percentage of c02 in the atmosphere .038%

    thats pretty small number, equivilant to 380 parts per million.

    Nature produces 97% of this c02, man and his burning of fossil fuels the other 3%, or 11.4 ppm.

    Canada prduces 2% of this 3% or .06% of atmospheric c02, which is equivilant to one fifth of one part per million of atmospheric c02.

    So if the Lib carbon tax is successful in shutting down all burning of fossil fuels in Canada there will be an annual reduction in atmospheric c02 of 1/5 of 1 part per million.

    Considering that the reductions achieved by taxing the hell out of Canadians won’t result in a 100% reduction in c02 emmissions, the actual reduction of emmissions will be dramatically smaller, like maybe 1/5 of 1/5 of 1 part per million, or 1/25 of 1 part per million.

  22. You got some sources to back those math stats up, Ward? I’d like to see who’s stating those figures that you’re quoting.

  23. Ward, even if your stats are correct, you’re missing the point. The climate change problem arises out of that 3% of a fraction of the atmosphere. If the theory is correct, that 3% of a fraction is too high, and needs to be lower. Just because the numbers are small doesn’t mean they’re not important. The small fraction of the atmosphere that is not N2 and O2 has a HUGE impact on our environment, to the point of making life as we know it possible.

    Secondly, Canada produces a disproportionate amount of emissions, and should reduce accordingly. Everyone has to do their part. Think of it like tax cuts — everyone got a small, relatively meaningless boost from the last GST cut, but when you add it all up, the gov’t can trumpet a tax reduction in the many millions.

    (I guess, technically, it doesn’t matter if we reduce the 97% natural production or the 3% anthropogenic amount, but it’s easier to work changing our output than that of a 3-billion-year old evolving system that we don’t understand and is much larger than us anyway. If your canoe is about to hit a barge, steer your canoe, don’t nudge the barge.)

  24. That stomach clutching pain and nausea you feel just before succumbing to fatal poisoning, is from the human-induced arsenic, which makes up less than 11.4 ppm in your sandwich.

  25. So the Tories are sending kids out in extremely hot and humid weather to distribute their propaganda. How humane.
    I hope they have hired the large number of street kids that hang out in the market and are paying them a fair wage.

  26. Scott Tribe: I encourage you to do a little googling on your own. You will find the figures to be correct, with some minor discrepancies between sources.

    Two Hats: the earth has had C02 levels 20 times as high as what we have currently – 7000 ppm in the early paleozoic period.

    If the AGW theory is correct, less c02 means cooler temps, which means oceans will absorb more C02, which will cool temps, leading to less co2. How do we stop cooling once introduced?

    Similarly, if increasing c02 means increasing temps, oceans cannot hold or absorb as much c02 as they do when cooler. So warming oceans will increase atmospheric co2 which will lead to more warming. Clearly this does not happen.

    Re your tax cut analogy, great if you can get everyone on board, but that is not the focus of Kyoto or carbon taxes. These are focused directly at western nations. China, Russia, India etc get a bye.

    Toby or not Toby:

    Your is funniest: co2 is not a poison. So adding a small percentage of c02 (which plants require to live and flourish) is not a bad thing. Thats why growers pump huge amounts of c02 into thier greenhouses – becuase it dramatically increases plant health and harvest.

  27. That ad made me giggle. The Tories had a blob of oil as their spokesman. I knew the Cons were in the pocket of oil but it is hilarious that they quite literally had oil as their spokesman.

  28. ward: Again, I’ll assume (without reason) your numbers are more or less correct. Your arguments are specious. The theory behind climate change is that changing atmospheric CO2 will change the climate. The climate wasn’t the same in the paleozoic as now. So I don’t see how the paleozoic CO2 level relates to the current discussion.
    If the current climate theory is correct, then yes, there are several feedback loops that make a bad situation worse. There are negative feedback loops also, that will mitigate. How disruptive will the shift to a new equilibrium be? I don’t know; ask a climate scientist. The theory, however, is that coming to a new equilibrium will be disruptive. That is, the climate (not just the weather!) will change.

    Warming *does* release oceanic CO2, so I take issue with you when you say “clearly this does not happen”.

    Now, if the theory linking CO2 and climate change is wrong, I grant you that the whole discussion is moot. But I’ve no more reason to question climate change theory than, say, evolutionary theory, or a whole bunch of other science whose subject make them impossible to lab test (in anthropology, geology, etc).

    And I think the tax analogy is actually not that bad. As the huge emitters (on a per capita basis), the west has to “pay” a disproportionate share of cuts — just like under our progressive tax system, the rich pay more than the poor. The current situation is far from ideal, I grant you, but it has the general shape of the way it has to be. It’s always important to go back to per capita numbers on this — it unfair to expect 2000 million Chinese and Indians to emit less CO2 than 33 million Canadians or even 300 million in the US.

    Your comment to tobyornottoby is completely off base too, and completely misses the point of the analogy but I’ll let them defend themselves.

  29. The Dion Carbon Tax is simply bad for everyone. Thanks MSM for helping get the message out.

  30. It’s disheartening to see how people will blindly flock to an unproven and secretive “climate change” plan. It seems as long as it is in the name of saving the planet (or sponsored by the Liberal Party) and it eases their guilt, then some are quite willing to throw billions of other peoples money at it – how thoughtful of them. I bet these same people drive one to a car and have the AC blasting today. I would expect Canada produces a disproportionate amount of emissions because it’s so bloody vast – so freaking hot in the summer and so unbelievably cold in the winter – the Kyoto deck is stacked against us. As well, one would think that as a Canada’s population grows, so will its emissions – it will be very difficult to reverse that one (“0” population growth?) We should concentrate on cutting our emissions, but not at the expense of our society. (and then we gotta do something about these friggen mosquitos – they’re unreal this year!)

  31. Canada produces a lot of CO2 because (in no particular order)
    1. we have a lot of dirty, heavy, industry (mining, energy, forestry) that is energy-intensive
    2. we are sparsely populated, meaning longer travel distances
    3. we have built our environment with no real regard to energy efficiency (building design, community sprawl, etc) because for 100 years energy has been unusually cheap
    4. we have a high level of comfort
    5… well, i’m sure there are lots of other reasons, but I bet 1, 3 & 4 are the big ones.

    The key to reducing emissions, of course will be to significantly reduce (per capita) energy use with the least impact possible on #4.

    Also, I encourage everyone to check out a great video series on YouTube, “How it All Ends”:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/wonderingmind42

  32. “How it All Ends” Two Hats??

    Closing Hymn: There Is A Green Party Far Away.

    LOL!!

  33. Yes, “How it All Ends”. It’s an intelligent discussion of risk analysis, science and society in the context of climate change. Anyway, I think it’s interesting. (You may or may not agree with the conclusions, but I think you have to admire the argument, not to mention the effort.)

    And despite the prominent role of funny hats in the production, I have nothing to do with it.

  34. Climate change is actually immaterial to the argument. What’s more important is our oil-based economy. So we have a choice:

    If climate change is caused by human produced CO2 — even if only partially — then the change will be slowed by our lessened reliance on CO2 heavy energy sources, such as oil and gas. This will allow us more time to come up with strategies and technologies to adapt to that portion of climate change that is not human caused.

    On the other side, if climate change is not caused by human activity whatsoever and the vast majority of peer-reviewed science out there is thus proven wrong, we still will have adapated ourselves to live in a manner that is less energy intensive and so will slow the the collapse of the oil-based economies — which eventually they MUST do, cause there simply isn’t any more oil being generated folks.

    So that’s the philosophical reasons supporting it in my mind. Now on to specifics:

    Barry: If the plan is unproven and secretive (though the actual word is “unreleased”), then how do you know it’s going to cost billions?

    Don: See my response to Barry’s comment, although your comment seems to have nothing to do with the Carbon Tax plan whatsoever and is more a general rant against Kyoto. Feel better for getting that out?

    Ward: Nobody is proposing taxing the hell out of Canadians. Not yet anyway. Dion has been arguing for a shift in taxation. We’ll see what that means when the plan comes out. If I get to pay less in income tax in return for having to pay more at the pumps or for products that consume a lot of gas? Count me in — because I’ve already adapted my lifestyle to use very little energy. I’ll come out ahead in the deal.

  35. Funny – I haven’t seen a single comment from a carbon tax supporter with the credibility of Ward’s observations.
    And I’ve often wondered, for those too young to remember, what happened to the ‘global cooling’ threat that we faced in the, what was it, late 70s or early 80s? At that point, the environmentalists were declaring a global ice age due to – five points if you got it, excess CO2 in the atmosphere.
    Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm…..

  36. 380 ppm and the planet ain’t gonna be at all like the cozy one we evolved on.
    http://www.350.org/4/

  37. You can’t argue with the willfully ignorant and anyone who still believes the man made global warming scam is either willfully ignorant or complicit in the scam.

  38. Have not seen any yellow t-shirt(i am sure that Harper fashion consultant did not have a say in the choice of this yellow), but as I stop my car to put 1/2 tank of cash, the price of #1.39 a litre,when in to pre-pay, when I go back to put the gas in, the price had jump to $1.40. At that moment I did not think of the message in this yellow ad, but I did think of a few choice word I had for Harper cannot be repeated other that choice of yellow reminds of yellow belly …..we in this household are doing our part for the enviroment, with 5 of us either bike, taking transit or walking so that we can keep our van on the road for our small business. It will take more that few silly ads no matter how clever some people think they are to convince me, mind you it is always a good thing to have a good laugh once in a while.

  39. Two Hats: My overall point is that there is very good reasons for healthy skepticism as to the claims of Global Warming (later changed to climate change).

    The dire predictions simply are not coming true.
    (RE my comment about higher previous C02 levels was that despite the higher Co2, the planet did not avoid ice ages – it should have).

    Why should we take anything the UN or Maurice Strong, the IPCC, the Green Party or David Suzuki says as triple gold plated undeniable truth? Have any of them been involved in scandals or been caught manipulating the truth in the past?

    Look at the disastrous results of bio fuels. This was another great plan hatched by greens, supported by the left and amplified by the media to the point where elected officials had to create policy to support it.

    Had any elected official tried to oppose using food to create fuel the media and assorted leftists would have had them drummed out of office. So now we have skyrocketing food prices and shortages to go along with high fuel prices. Think we can just undo the programs and subsidies that have been put in place in support of bio fuel production?

    I see the same dynamic at play here. Every time the climate does not cooperate with the AGW crowd the goalposts get moved to accomodate the missed predictions.

    It doesnt seem to matter how wrong or backwards they get it the media happily move on to their next talking point. As a previous poster noted this is just another environmental alarmist prediction in a long line of them (were supposed to be out of oil and a lot of other things by now)

    The difference this time is that if Kyoto or anything like it is successfully implemented, it will never go away, and it will be used as a tool to control individuals, societies and nations.

    No thanks

  40. ew. old enough to be my grandfather. moving on. “Yes, because sensible and principled plans to fight climate change just. won’t. do.”

    Good point Mrs.Dion.

    Funny how it wasn’t so sensible and principled a couple of months ago when Mr.Dion opposed it.

    This country will never improve until stupidity hurts.

    Although some of Wells prose…..”
    We actually came to roughly the same conclusion as Mr. Dion in my biology class. Said biology class was in a community several hundred kilometres north of everywhere supported by logging. If anybody should oppose a carbon tax, it’s me. However, I think that it’s the most sensible and principled plan that has as yet been proposed. Call me crazy, but I am 17 and I don’t really want to spend the rest of my life cleaning up the mistakes of previous generations.

  41. “And I’ve often wondered, for those too young to remember, what happened to the ‘global cooling’ threat that we faced in the, what was it, late 70s or early 80s? At that point, the environmentalists were declaring a global ice age due to – five points if you got it, excess CO2 in the atmosphere.”

    Gee, Wally, I remember that too, and, boy, do you have it wrong.

    First, it was a small number of claimants pressing a global cooling theory who got lots of sensationalist press, and it was not based on CO2 concentration, but upon the increasing concentration of particulates in the air (causing global dimming — a real phenomenon, by the way). Arguing against that idea, were scientists thiking that the excess CO2 being pumped into the air from the same sources as the particulates would reverse the effect of the global dimming, and then even make the planet warmer.

    Climate change denialists are very fond of distorting the facts of history. To be clear, the argument for global cooling NEVER was about it being caused by excess CO2, there was never a consensus that global cooling would continue to happen, or was happening at all due to particulates, and certainly the ‘environmentalists’ were not operating in unison either, then or now.

  42. Hey George : it’s back on haven’t you heard. Global warming actually temporarily maybe but more than likely if the data model is sort of correct then global warming causes global cooling followed by more global warming PS: none of the ipcc data models factored in the affect of the sun or the oceans – ooops! why are our predictions askew we jus’t can’t figure it out and all eminent scientists agree well at least those applying for any sort of grant right now better damn well better support the ipcc or it’s negatory and no soup for you!

  43. Climate change -> more mosquitoes -> sad Barry Westholm. Simple.

  44. What’s with the yellow theme for the ad anyway? Was it a nod to sulfur emissions?
    Where’s the Conservative logo proudly displayed on the attack ad?

    And could it be more fitting than having a BLOB OF OIL speaking for the Harper Conservatives?

  45. I like the yellow theme as it is a particularly appropro colour as a backdrop for Dion who as far as I am concerned is about as yellow as you get!

Sign in to comment.