Canada’s Conservative Party Rejects Saying Climate Change is Real

[Just A Holy Fool 2,656]

Canada’s Conservatives had their policy convention this weekend. They had a vote to add a line to the party’s environmental policy saying the party recognizes climate change is real...

it was defeated 

 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-delegates-reject-climate-change-is-real-1.5957739

 

[Lucas 31,102]

They need to svck a dlck... this is unbelievable

[Economy 52,844]

4 minutes ago, Lucas said:

They need to svck a dlck... this is unbelievable

The title is misleading. They did not say this

 

They are not supporting a variety of statement wordings and stuff. This is 1 single line out of many. Them turning down the book as a whole doesnt mean they are declaring climate change not real. They are not approving some and rejecting others. They have to either support all or none

 

This kind of polarization and exagerations/sensationalism in politics really does not help divisions and hate from opposing sides

[Just A Holy Fool 2,656]

1 minute ago, Economy said:

The title is misleading. They did not say this

What did they say then? They certainly don’t seem to believe it’s real if they can’t bring themselves to vote for a clause stating it’s real. Also it basically went against what the leader implored them to do. Such a giant **** you from the party base. They are going to get slaughtered in the next election.

 

[Just A Holy Fool 2,656]

4 minutes ago, Economy said:

The title is misleading. They did not say this

 

They are not supporting these green measures they did not say they dont believe its real

 

This kind of polarization and exagerations/sensationalism in politics really does not help divisions and hate from opposing sides

I don’t buy that. At the very least huge PR disaster for them. Their opponents will hit them over the head with this as they should. 

[chromatic puzea 10,653]

are we suprised?

this is why imma be voting green party

idc if y'all think they're fools i gotta at least vote for them as a protest party since justin trudeau loves pipelines too

[Economy 52,844]

1 minute ago, Just A Holy Fool said:

What did they say then? They certainly don’t seem to believe it’s real if they can’t bring themselves to vote for a clause stating it’s real. Also it basically went against what the leader implored them to do. Such a giant **** you from the party base. They are going to get slaughtered in the next election.

 

Im not disagreeing with u they dont take it seriously enough nor am i saying they shouldnt support this that is not my point

 

But the conservatives not showing enough support is totally different from outright saying it doesnt exist...

 

u can throw a problem under the rug or downplay it but thats not the same as declaring it isnt real which is what you wrote in the title

 

Sorry but its misleading. Ur not saying they arent supportive enough. Ur saying they declared it as not real which is not what they said

[Economy 52,844]

4 minutes ago, Just A Holy Fool said:

I don’t buy that. At the very least huge PR disaster for them. Their opponents will hit them over the head with this as they should. 

I agree with this but ur missing my point. Ur title is an accusation of something they didnt actually declare

 

U can criticize them for prioritizing economic interests ahead of environemnt and downplaying the severity but not wanting to use certain languahe but outright declaring it isnt real is totally different and thats not what they did

[Just A Holy Fool 2,656]

2 minutes ago, Economy said:

I agree with this but ur missing my point. Ur title is an accusation of something they didnt actually declare

Okay I changed the wording a bit.. they did reject adding a clause saying it’s real. Which implies a majority of delegates at the very least are skeptical of policy in climate. Huge disaster for them. 

[CautiousLurker 19,709]

3 minutes ago, Economy said:

But the conservatives not showing enough support is totally different from outright saying it doesnt exist...

Is it totally different tho? And when the outcome is essentially the same, is it really that important to make that distinction?

Its like if someone wishes death upon someone else, but when they're called out, they go 'I didn't say they should die, I merely said they should stop existing in this world... they might get stuck in a timeloop or get banished to a parallel universe, I never said die' 

[Economy 52,844]

1 minute ago, Just A Holy Fool said:

Okay I changed the wording a bit.. they did reject adding a clause saying it’s real. Which implies a majority of delegates at the very least are skeptical of policy in climate. Huge disaster for them. 

I dont think the necessairily are skeptical i think it may hage more to do with not wanting to emphasize it because it comes into conflict with some of their ambitions especially in energy sector

 

If uve followed the conservatives in Canada over the years the general message hasnt been that climate change isnt real but rather than economic growth is more important than environment

 

So it doesnt seem like a matter of of not believing in climate change but rather not wanting to prioratize adressing it over economy and this article to me seems to kinda reinforce that trend in my opinion

 

Either way thanks, i think your new title is more accurate and less misleading

 

[bionic 50,111]

Absolutely delusional

But most of these politicians will be long dead before we’re truly feeling the consequences of climate change 

[Economy 52,844]

5 minutes ago, CautiousLurker said:

Is it totally different tho? And when the outcome is essentially the same, is it really that important to make that distinction?

Its like if someone wishes death upon someone else, but when they're called out, they go 'I didn't say they should die, I merely said they should stop existing in this world... they might get stuck in a timeloop or get banished to a parallel universe, I never said die' 

If the direct accusation or criticism is about them saying it isnt real then yes i think the distinction matters

 

It doesnt stop u from being able to criticize their complacency u dont have to put words in their mouth they didnt say

 

Cuz when u go down the road of adding stuff they didnt actually say they can do the same back... i think politics gets messier than it needs to be in part because of that

 

I think ur killing example is not quite the same thing. Ur talking about killing a girl and using the method used as some kind of excuse if im understanding? Were talking about denial here

 

I can choose to smoke that doesnt mean im denying its bad effects or telling others they should smoke too. I just havent chosen to put the big effort it takes to actually quit, it doesnt mean im in denial about it. Also i dont actually smoke its an example

[Supersonic 49,376]

1 minute ago, Economy said:

Im not disagreeing with u they dont take it seriously enough nor am i saying they shouldnt support this that is not my point

 

But the conservatives not showing enough support is totally different from outright saying it doesnt exist...

 

u can throw a problem under the rug or downplay it but thats not the same as declaring it isnt real which is what you wrote in the title

 

Sorry but its misleading. Ur not saying they arent supportive enough. Ur saying they declared it as not real which is not what they said

I see where you're getting at, it's semantics.

But just continue your train of though to the end of the line. Throwing something down the rug and pretending it's not a problem is effectively the same a formally denying something is a problem in the same place. It has the same effects and consequences.

There's an ideological reason why this specifically was scratched from the agenda. The majority of the party doesn't believe it is real. This is how politics works if you subscribe to a policy of respectability. Instead of actively camaigning what you're against, you're passively not supporting what you believe in and try to ignore/quitely deplatform it. Because if you attack, people will read you as aggressive and you're prone to more criticism than when you're holding a passive stance. AND being in a passive stance from the get go allows you to play the victim better once somebody criticizes your policies. 

 

[CautiousLurker 19,709]

1 minute ago, Economy said:

If the direct accusation or criticism is about them saying it isnt real then yes i think the distinction matters

 

It doesnt stop u from being able to criticize their complacency u dont have to put words in their mouth they didnt say

 

Cuz when u go down the road of adding stuff they didnt actually say they can do the same back... i think politics gets messier than it needs to be in part because of that

 

I think ur killing example is not quite the same thing. Were talking about inaction vs denial here.

If you say 'they deny climate change' and they say 'that's false, we don't deny it, we merely don't want to do anything about it', that doesn't sound in the least bit better than the initial accusation, so I still don't see why it's so important to make that distinction, especially when conservatives never bother to adhere to the same standards anyway - they will straight up lie without even bothering to root their lie in any kind of truth, so... I still say making that distinction doesn't matter - 'they deny climate change' is good enough