Don't the NDP debate topics? Or is it just a Woke Olympics?

Rachel Arab, the reason extra clips were invented, is upset that the federal Conservative Party dared to look into the question of "hey is this climate change rumour worth all the money people want to throw at it?"

As is typical with Rachel Arab, everything she says is always a retarded lie. So let's break this one down.

The answer to "Seriously?!" is "no, not really." She's reacting to a (lying) CBC article about the debates over declaring climate change to be real as an official part of the Conservative Party platform. Somehow I get the impression that a motion to declare that women can only get pregnant after being fertilized by a man would get a similar aggressive treatment at an NDP convention (more on that below). The headline made it sound more involved than it really was, it was more about whether it was counterproductive to even throw it in the platform. It most certainly was: evil dykes like K. Walmsley won't be joining the Conservatives as a result of this change, and numerous actual principled conservatives will leave (more on that below). As I wrote on this topic back in December of 2008:
In politics there is a simple rule about any action your government or opposition wishes to take: either your plan has to bring in more new voters than the number of old voters you lose, or else you had such a glut of old voters you could afford to lose them.
Conservatives, now 9 points back of the Liberals due to a temporary bump up in the vaccine rates (we show up on the charts now!) and O'Toole's low approval rating across the entire political spectrum, don't have a glut of voters they can afford to piss off, and since "believing in climate change" isn't going to make NDP voters sign on while their media buddies assure them conservative=evil and collude to keep them from learning the truth, it fails that test as well. It was a worthy topic of debate (and in the end the party chose the wrong answer).

Okay moving onto Rachel Arab's second lie: "Climate change is real. Period." As so many conservative delegates at the convention, and what few non-banned-for-being-conservative conservatives in her Twitter replies have asked: "can we see any proof of this"? All we end up getting are a bunch of projections based on models, which would be fine except that we now have a quarter century of projections based on models which include the years we happen to be living in, and the models straight up don't hold water. If you listened to scientists in 2000 you'd be told that British children would never again see snow. If you listened to conservatives in 2000 you'd be told that the 2020 climate wouldn't be appreciably hotter. Here we are looking at 2020 and look what we discover...conservatives were right, science was wrong. (This seems to happen fairly often). As is typical, the only way the left can get science on their side is by faking the science. Another NDP claim, another NDP lie.

Now onto Rachel Arab's third sentence (and third lie): "Claiming it's not is dangerous." What she means, of course, is that conservatives shouldn't even be able to make conservative statements since presumably they will also wish to act on these statements, and acting on the "claim" (fact) that the climate isn't appreciably warming and/or that it's not worth the cost to try and stop it. To show how silly this is, let's pretend her second lie wasn't actually a lie, and climate change is a horrible horrible crisis that will kill us all in... *checks watch* ...nine years and nine months away from now. What if a Conservative government under Erin O'Toole refuses to take any action about climate change and wins enough elections that they remain in power until that slut Greta's mythical 12 years expires? One would presume that Canada's carbon footprint increases roughly analogous with growth: 2% per year from 2018 (the last year hard data exists) until 2031 (excepting a 8% shrinkage due to Wuhan Flu restrictions in 2020). That's a total growth of 16.68%, bringing our CO2 from 716Mt to 835Mt (the Liberal Government claims 815Mt in 2030 without any action, it will be curious if their rigorous analysis or my back of the envelope analysis proves closer, not that they're that far off).
So what will the global carbon emissions look like in 2030? Well, projections from Climate Action Tracker say 3.8–4.1 Gt, so...oh,wait, sorry, that's for India alone! Worldwide the IPCC predicts 49–53 Gt and even that presumes that several countries will meet their aggressive reduction targets: Roger Pielke explains why that's almost certainly bullshit.

So let's go with a decent "halfway" meetup between the 49 Gt minimum guess by the IPCC and the 26 Gt they want for their silly "1.5C target", and say that global CO2 emissions will be 37.5Gt in 2030 and that's with the retarded Liberal/NDP Paris targets applied. In which case, Canada would contribute 503Mt to that global target: 1.34% of the global total. If instead we did the "conservative plan" (note this may not end up being the Conservative plan) and emitted 819Mt, the global CO2 emissions would rise to 37.8Gt and Canada would contribute 2.16% of global emissions. This means that even if the world was halfways successful in reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions (unlikely), if Canada sat on our hands and refused to participate it would result in a 0.8% increase in worldwide carbon emissions. If that's the extent of the "danger" we have very little to worry about. Of course, it's highly likely that worldwide CO2 emissions will continue to increase, driven largely by economic production increasing in countries where cheap labour and a strong authoritarian government guarantees that growth will progress without policies that make Rachel Arab happy.

So now let's circle back to the questions Rachel Arab's questions bring up to any halfways intelligent casual observer: how else do political parties resolve disputes other than with debate? That there's a large number of conservatives who (rightly or wrongly) think climate change is bunk and not deserving the attention of government. So why shouldn't the political party that presumably exists to promote their views discuss the matter. In more direct language: why doesn't the Alberta NDP have vigorous policy debates? What happens when there's a gap between what the rank and file want and the party leadership advocates?

For a random example, there's a big anti-pipeline wing of the Alberta NDP, yet during 5 years of NDP government Rachel Arab claimed to be pro-pipeline. Why didn't we hear stories during their party policy conventions about a fight between people on the side of the "well this position is popular with the public and therefore it shouldn't be our party policy" and "this position is unpopular with our base and shouldn't be part of our party policy"? It's the same basic tension with climate change in the federal Conservative party: we know it must exist, so why is Rachel Arab implying it shouldn't be up for discussion?

It would be nice if the NDP were forced to actually debate positions: we can only dream of debates over whether "taxation is theft" or "sodomy is a disgusting lifestyle choice" become hotly contested over being in their policy documents. The problem of course is that like all leftists they hate debate: they aren't very good at it (partly because they have never been exposed to the other side of the argument), and because their beliefs and policies are inferior they tend to lose them.