Wednesday, November 24, 2010

The eco-nuts have lost the debate on the Oil Sands

I watched a couple of excellent debates with Ezra Levant and various green stooges yesterday.  I must conclude that we have won the debate.  The various boycotts and public defamation campaigns (PD rather than PR) have utterly lost the argument.

The debate between Andrew Nikiforuk and Ezra Levant in Calgary was fantastic.  This is the sort of debate that I've come to enjoy.  I prefer a hostile audience and a hysterical opponent.  I like the deeply polarized back and forth  between very different ideologies that almost reminds me of a sport.  Nikiforuk lays on the thick and pointless rhetoric and Ezra Levant handily upends the entire righteous onslaught.  By the end of the debate Nikiforuk is sounding shaky and shrill and indirectly concedes the point that Oil Sands oil is more efficient and more ethical than any other major source of oil on earth.  

Ezra Levant and Andrew Nikiforuk debate ethics of Alberta's oilsands from Trevor Howell on Vimeo.

These are the sorts of debates you'll have in your own life.  Skeptics must be prepared to fight from a corner without a friend in the room. Have the courage to stand up to the liberal nonsense and you'll find their arguments combusted like a greenpeace pamphlet in the fireplace. 

You can see that Ezra won the debate by the end of the video.  More proof that this is a winning argument comes from the next debate in Ottawa.  This time its Ezra and Elizabeth May the leader of the Green Party.  I found this debate slightly less entertaining and edifying than the first one. 

Ezra Levant was awesome of course.  Elizabeth May on the other hand treated the debate like a Green Party press conference.  She immediately falls back on the "we still need to do more" argument.  Gone is the old "Stop the Tar Sands" shrieking.

This is a victory.  The leader of the Green Party supports the Oil Sands.  Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Suzuki Foundation, and the rest are that far removed from the wishes of the people today.  We are winning and its thanks to Ezra Levant and all the skeptics out there turning one person at a time.  Keep it up, and enjoy part one.

Ezra Levant - Elisabeth May debate Pt. 1 from Vlad Tepes on Vimeo.

(h/t GayandRight I appreciate all your good work and that of the Free Thinking Film Society.) 


Anonymous said...

I wanted to see the Q & A session. Andrew looked like he was going to get his a$$ handed to him by someone in the crowd. I guess Andrew missed the part about the sub-prime mortgage fiasco that precipitated the banking crisis, not $147 oil.

I agree with Ezra. Whatever we do should be results oriented, rather than "feel good" as Andrew waxed poetically.

Anonymous said...

I didn't bother watching Elizabeth May. I couldn't do it without getting an overwhelming urge to trash my computer monitor.

Anonymous said...

I cannot listen to her for one more minute. For me the debate is over.

She's the worst kind of screamer, she only does it when she's standing up.

Mark said...

Too bad the Q&A session wasn't recorded between Andrew and Ezra. Great debate. The funny thing is nobody - and I mean nobody - has refuted Ezra's main thesis.

Mark said...

Carbon trading/pricing. Ye gods, Elizabeth.

Anonymous said...

I usually ask the greens what we should do, should we implement Kyoto and sign the Copenhagen treaty?
They all love idea of the Copenhagen treaty.

But, Chinese industry pollutes more per unit of production than our industry.
The Copenhagen treaty would increase the costs to our clean industry here through new regulations and taxes, but it wouldn't apply to the dirty industry in China.
So more production would go to the dirty factories in China while the clean ones here shut down.
So more pollution, not less.

And since we would ship more of our raw materials there and finished products back here that would cause even more real pollution and C02 emissions.
They lecture us about how we should buy our food locally to reduce pollution from transportation, but we are supposed to buy our steel from China?
None of it makes any sense.

These treaties would increase pollution overall and cause job losses here.
Ask a green to explain how that is a good idea.
It's always good for a confused look or two and a bunch of gibberish.


Post a Comment