ForsbergTheGreat
-
Posts
12,354 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by ForsbergTheGreat
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
What’s a person supposed to do if they can’t defend themselves and their family. The idea that the RCMP will do that in every situation is ridiculous, where in many cases there response time is 30-60 min for rural locations.
That’s not a knock on our hard working police force, just a fact that budget and resources doesn’t allow them to be present in every location, at every hour. You should have the right to defend your home and your family.
-
2
-
3
-
10
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
45 minutes ago, UnkNuk said:I think Forsberg and others have a valid point.
IF the climate scientists are right about the dire consequences that are coming our way due to man made CO2 emissions and IF the only way to stop those dire consequences is for the world to come together and drastically reduce those emissions, I think we're probably screwed. I just don't see that type of unified action coming.
My hope is that reducing CO2 emissions isn't the only way of solving the problem. That, instead, someone will come up with a technological innovation that extracts greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and converts them into something useful (like another energy source).
As Strome mention, trees love CO2. But also The good news we do have companies coming up with ways to capture carbon, Shell quest
Spoilerand even local a company called Carbon engineering which is even backed by Bill Gates.
Spoiler-
1
-
1
-
3
-
9 minutes ago, inane said:
Does it require a deep understanding something to be passionate about it? I know very little about how my internal organs actually work but I'm pretty passionate about making sure they continue to work.
How do you make sure your organs continue to work? By having a slight idea of what is good or bad for your body to consume perhaps?
If you were told you need to drastically reduce your alcohol intake over the next 12 years or it will be too late for your organs and you will die. Would you focus on cutting out the odd glass of wine you have once a month and call that a victory. All the while ignoring the 40 of vodka you pound a day.
Seems like a smart and logical idea.
If it’s a legit climate emergency, treat it like one. Actually focus on viable solutions that will actually make an impact to reduce/cut out global emission otherwise what’s the point of the alarmism. Instead of coming across as a concerned activist you come across as a weak minded individual simply looking to appease your own conscience. Most people are smart enough to realize that and it’s why protest like this are losing their appeal and being labeled as a negative. People are fed up being called the bad guy.
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, inane said:
i just don't understand how you can live your life with that philosophy. it's cowardly and sheepish, which is ironic considering what you label others.
I don’t understand how you and others can be so passionate about something with such a limited understanding.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, inane said:
ignorance is bliss
Right back at you.
Stupid is as stupid does.
-forest gump
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, inane said:
change is incremental and leadership is required. if Canada takes serious steps to deal with this issue, will that 'solve' it? No. But that's how change works, it's slow and has to be lead by people with the means to make it happen and be the leader. Gay rights, women's rights, banning DDT, etc etc etc. All started by smaller nations as an act of leadership and are now relatively common or law across the world.
The whole premise behind your position is 'if everyone else doesn't do it why should we' is a self destructive dead end.
Didn’t you hear this is a climate emergency. We’ve got less than 12 years left.
PS gay rights and women’s rights is far from a global victory. And global warms requires all countries across the global to buy in.
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:
You really think north american Co2 emissions haver zero effect on the global climate ?
You think that the Alberta oilsands has zero impact on rising earths temperatures ?
Seriously ? wow......
Yeah I think and science back me up that China and India’s year to year growth in CO2 emissions is the equivalent to 10 years of CO2 emissions of the oil sands.
Canada represents 1.6% of global emissions. Global Emissions are increasing at 2.7%.even if Canada produces ZERO emissions the global emissions still grows. You would think about how vocal and passionate you are about this topic that you would have done one ounce of research on it. I guess that’s a lot to ask for nowadays.
-
1
-
-
Quote
climate has been changing for billions of years. The issue now however is:
Is human activity changing the climate for the worse, in terms of animal extinction, acidification of the ocean, pollution of the air etc..
The point you seem to be missing is the ask of what is the point they are trying to make with these protest?
If you truly believe that there’s a huge problem coming then why the hell are you focused on pointing fingers at people who can do absolutely nothing as fixing that huge problem.
Any person with the slightest understanding of global CO2 emissions would understand that you’re painting the wrong people as the villains and thus this crusade of “shaming” Canada doesn’t appear just in what you say the cause is. It really comes across as greenwashing and a way for individuals to pass guilt in a attempt to appease their own conscience. If they truly cared about Global warming and truly wanted to reduce the worlds global footprint, then attack the countries who are at root of this problem. Again if you truly believe there is a huge problem a head in our future, why are you putting so much effort into a country that represents a tiny spec.
Let’s play their game and say they got all there asks and we completely stopped every single emission for an entire year, utterly destroying this economy and all of it’s citizens quality of life…. the worlds emissions would still rise at an accelerated rate and we’d be no closer as solving this climate crisis. Where is the logic in that destroying ourselves at the benefit of ????. If you’re looking for martyrdom, they’d be more effective simply walking off bridge completely erasing their carbon footprints.
Ill ask it again to reiterate, what is the goal of these protests?
-
1
-
1
-
-
Are we truly in a climate crisis to the point where peoples lively hoods and households in Canada need to be affected? If that is really is the case, why are not talking about more extreme measures? Like turning off energy in people homes this winter, or implementing a 1 child law, or better yet lets reducing the population by about a few billion. If we truly only have 12 years left why are so focused on the small cap CO2 emissions like Canadians. Shutting Canada down completely doesn’t make a blimp on the global emissions rise, thus no closer at preventing our impending doom in 12 years.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, canuck73_3 said:
I don't disagree with that, however Leivo is more likely to be claimed than Baertschi, Baertschi gets injured again and we have one less legit NHL player to call up.
It's a gamble either way but I think Leivo is a better fit.
Maybe so, but I'm certainly not sold on Leivo enough to risk losing Baertschi. It's only been a short sample size but it's hard to see him being any more than the next Leispic or Granlund, The league is really filled with his types, in the last 3 years we've picked up a handful of similar types. We will really see how it works out.
But in the end I can't imaging the FA being very happy, last year waiving Gagner JB said was a tough call he had to make, now having Sven's 3.36 in the minors and LE's 6 mill in the press box. We're watching over FA pay over 12 million this year on dead space.
-
7 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:
And again Baertschi has a track record of being injured every season. Baertschi has missed 20 or more games 4 of his 6 full seasons, he's scored 30+ points once.
Leivo is a bigger better 200ft player that is capable of chipping in offensively.
71% of NHL games were decided by 1 goal last year so while offense is good you need defensive responsibility too. Another element Leivo brings over Baertschi.
Levio brings and element that this team already has a lot of.
Pearson, Leivo, Miller, Horvat, Sutter, Beagle, Eriksson, Schaller, Motte all fit into the hard working, 200ft game, will your way to score types, all with varying levels of offence and defence.
Virtanen, Ferklund are the energy guys with heavy shots.
Boeser is your trigger shot sniper
None of them are pure skill guys that you would want to have the puck on the half wall of a power play.
Jim is banking on relying on hard work to outscore the opponents and while hard work is an important trait, hockey sense is needed with balance. It's a risk that JB is taking but if this team struggles to score this season, that is on JB's decisions to waive the only other two forwards who bring pure skill to the roster outside of EP. We will see if is works out.
-
1
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, Warhippy said:
Love those arguments.
They're not changing so I don't have to.
Let's hypothetically claim that "they" are living in an open sewer" and you are choosing to also live in an open sewer because they refuse to change.
Love those arguments. I don't have to change because they won't change is the equivalent of I'm waiting for them to jump off the bridge so I can to. Why be a leader when you can be a follower
No the validity of the argument is if my effort gives me economic grief while also bringing next to zero net benefit it is worth it?
No one is saying don’t attempt to live cleaner, what people are saying is, are you considering the costs for the level of change people are calling for.
How is much of your own income do you donate into climate change research? Less than 50%? 75%? Why not 100%, isn’t the world at stake?
We know the answer is very low, because you, like most sane people, take care of your own household first. You are not going to put your own household in jeopardy to survive, all for the zero impact your donation would contribute. Should people go to your home and protest that you aren’t doing enough?
-
2
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, BPA said:
Well. Got to start somewhere.
Like I was telling a friend. Growing up we never did any recycling. Everything went into the trash. Things take time to change. Now it's expected to recycle.
I don't think anyone is asking to FULL-STOP everything. But we all can make some little changes that can make large differences.
My kids walk to school (I walk them to school cuz I'm paranoid). I bike to work (not every day cuz my knees get sore). Take the skytrain to the mall sometimes. Telecommuting is becoming a thing now. Same with Video conferencing (no need to fly in for a meeting).
Reducing carbon footprint can be done so long as there is the will to do it. It may be slower for our generation (typically the older you the more resistant to change you are) but the younger generation and ones to follow can thrust it to the forefront.
Cars/Trucks will continue as there still needs to be a method of moving goods and people. However, you can see more and more electric cars being developed. It won't be mainstream yet until there is adequate changing stations. And we really need to make more mass transit to main hubs around all of Greater Vancouver.
See that’s the issue a lot of people have. They are stuck and think the things you are advocating will save the world, but really most of that stuff is just greenwash. CO2 emissions are a global issue and when you look at who the largest emitters are, you should quickly realize that the 1.6% Canada owns is a drop in the bucket to countries like China and India. Even if Canada shut down every single source of emission, global emissions still grow at an accelerated rate and we are no closer as solving climate change. And that is talking about the extreme of stopping everything and having everyone go off grid. That just not realistic, so people advocate transitioning to green, but I question if people who are advocating for this have even considered and done the research to see if that is a realistic option. Most evidence suggest it’s not even remotely realistic.
Take Michael Shellenberger for example, he is a Time Magazine "Hero of the Environment," Green Book Award winner, and the founder and president of Environmental Progress. has stated “you can't power a modern economy on solar and wind... All they do is make the electricity system chaotic and provide greenwash for fossil fuels”. Bill gates has also made similar statements around renewable energy. “I am optimistic,” that the international community can solve climate change. But in the same breath he added, “Part of the problem is there’s not a broad awareness of how challenging it’s going to be to bring down greenhouse gas emissions.” A lot of people think renewable energy,” he said. “Wind and solar has gotten a lot cheaper. Isn’t that it? When electricity is only a quarter of the problem. In fact, we’ve got to solve the entire 100 percent.”
People are deceiving themselves into believing what and how to solve climate change. There is an obtainable solution and you never hear a peep about it. In terms of finding a carbon neutral energy replacement the answer is easily Nuclear. In terms to reducing CO2 emissions part of the answer is doing what you mentioned above but that’s really small scale, you should also include pushing for more carbon capture programs, supporting more GMO’s, and most of all supporting pipelines. These are all methods of making the current emissions vastly more effective while supporting a demand that is not going away.
I’m not saying give up and not care about how you live your life, but I am saying we need shift the focus onto something that will actual make change. People call on politicians to implement all these small scale changes that come at a great economic cost.. which, as I said before gets us no closer to solving the issue. Anyways I’m also open for a healthy debate on this topic
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, UnkNuk said:
Their future may be being screwed up by older folks who are the ones in position to do something about climate change and aren't doing it.
Who’s in position to do something? That’s what I'm getting at. People don’t have the slightest clue on what the solution is. They think they know the problem (co2 levels rising) but what about the solution?
QuoteAs far as them being unaware of what preventing climate change might entail in their personal lives - I don't know if that's true or not. I just watched the demonstration, I didn't talk to any of the young people. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them weren't sure what they were demanding. But I wouldn't be surprised if many of them did have some idea and were ready to go along with it. We should be careful about these sweeping generalizations.
I doubt 1% of them do because even the majority of climate activities in North America don’t.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, 5Fivehole0 said:
Why, when I can be cheeky, and sneak in a bit of trolling amongst the serious talk?
<.<
Sorry, It’s just that I’ve already had this debate with 73 a few post before and wasn’t in the mood. My bad for the snarky ness
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, UnkNuk said:
They didn't "do nothing". They expressed their concern that their future may be being screwed up by old folks (ie anyone over 30). And, it seems to me, that having your future screwed up by other people is a legitimate cause for concern and it makes sense to speak up about it.
How is their future being screwed up by older folks. These kids global emissions footprint is bigger than any of the past generation by a long shot. They all want cellphones by 10 years old, video games, computers and TV's in every room, they need air conditioning, they all need to fly on family vacations, they all want their meat production with no added hormones or steroids, non GMO plants with no pesticides, can't take transit or bike, gotta have their parents chauffeur them to school every day. They want change, they just don't understand the sacrifices in their own lives that it will take, to get the change.
That's the problem today with climate alarmist, they hear all the dooms day predictions and think themselves "this is bad we need to do something and go out and protest" But who are they protesting? If they want change, stop being the greedy spoiled kids that they are today. Before you start protesting, actually learn what the problem and if what you are protesting will actually help/change/have any impact on the issue. Because if you don't, you look like crazy people on the streets yelling the sky is falling.
-
1
-
2
-
-
22 minutes ago, 5Fivehole0 said:
I disagree... And so did Hank when he won the Art Ross without Daniel.
How old was hank when he won the art ross? Was he 22-24? Oh that’s right he was 29. If you’re going to disagree. Then actually read the point I made.
-
29 minutes ago, 73 Percent said:
Guy. Henrik won art and hart while Daniel was out with a broken foot. 112 pts. More than crosby in his prime.
His linemates were samuelsson and burrows lol.
Danny only missed 20 games and Hank was also in the midst of his prime when that happened. At 23 he was a .5p/gp player still learning the league and struggling defensively. Goldy at 23 is a .42 p/gp player, still learning the league, struggling defensively.
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, 73 Percent said:
Put henrik on a line with sutter and virtanen and you can still see where the skill is.
Yeah I would disagree on that. Pure skilled players need their counter there skillset. Luckily for hank he always had his brother. Take away Daniel when they were 22-24 and you’d see a player that looks lost.
QuoteGoldy apart from EP has been useless. Just like erikksson but significantly worse in his own end.
Many of the players have looked useless. But the goal is to get full potential out of them. If canucks can get the 50-60 point player out of goldy he becomes a major asset to this team. Same thing with jake. If they can get the 20 goal 40 point player that consistently plays on the edge. This team would be much better off.
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, 73 Percent said:
People need to get the "if he played with EP" out of their heads. EPs linemates are ferland and boeser. Boeser has earned that spot.
Of course goldy looked good with EP. So does erikksson. Not everyone nan play with him.
There’s a difference between looking good and being a contributor to the line. Eriksson with EP would be passenger. goldy while playing with EP, is able to carry his own weight and being an element to the line.
Players and and skill sets all mesh differently. Put Henrik alone on a line with Sutter and virtanen and he also doesn’t look like he belongs. Give him some talent to work with and he’s an all star.
This team is lacking skill hockey sense. Not many players on the roster can slow the game down. EP is all we really have, Sven to a much lesser extent. That’s why mgmt really wants goldy to work out.
-
36 minutes ago, BPA said:
He'll get waived and most likely get picked up.
He's got skill but some consistency issues (like all young players).
Pretty obvious by now that he cannot drive play. That's not his game. He is a complimentary top 6 winger.
Put in the right spot, he's a 40-50pt kind of guy. Without the right linemates, he's more of a 30pt guy.
He’s very gagner esq. lots of talent and skill and could be a 50-60 point player with the right guys.
-
49 minutes ago, aliboy said:
This is mainly on TG, who has decided not to put him in a position to succeed. It is the worst possible situation for a young developing player. I am thinking it would be better for him if he does get claimed.
I don’t know if I would go that far, every team has similar strategies. It’s really on goldy to roll with the punches.
It’s just the way the game is, very few players have there hands held to reach there full limits. Player development has a long ways to go in the nhl and it’s lagging way behind other industries simply because of the competition. It’s put up right now or see you later on to the next guy, same thing virtanen is going to be go through this year. Franchises have to be cognizant on what’s best for the team vs the individuals.
And while that does cost the league potentially missing a lot of high end talent who wind up stars in other leagues, they still have enough top end guys to keep this sport entertaining, so it’s justifiable.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Goldy is not going to make the team and will likely get waived (and likely clear). But here is the issue with Goldy. In order for him to be good, he needs to play with other high skilled talent. He is not an energy guy, he’s a slow the game down and create scoring chance guy (very poor man’s Sedin). So I don’t really feel he was put in a great position to showcase himself this training camp. He was put with hard working grinders and looked very much like a passenger and out of place, but the few shifts he was brought up and played alongside Petey or on the top PP unit, he looked like a contributor. We saw much of the same last year. It’s disappointing since he has a skill set that this team is really lacking, outside of EP we don’t have this type of hockey sense.
So while I really don’t think he was given a fair shot, I do think he will get waived and I’m really hoping a team doesn’t claim him. If a team does and is willing to put him in a position to showcase his skillset he does have the potential to be a highly effective producer.
-
1
-
4
-
1 minute ago, TheAce said:
Treliving came out today saying that one of the reasons it was a shorter deal and for less money than expected was because Tkachuk " could not and would not " allow his contract to be the reason one of his teamates was traded off. There were lots of stories that Brodie or Frolik would have to be moved when Tkachuk signed but he made sure that wouldnt happen. With stories like that, its easy to see why he was given an A so quickly and is a well respected in the locker room
Yeah I listened to the treliving and tkachuk interviews last night on my way home from work and it makes you wonder where this “bad” character rumors come from. The kid is a real team player and oozes leadership. His gm loves him, his coaches love him. And most of all his teammates love him.
-
3
-
Alberta man sued by trespasser who was hit with a ricocheted bullet files counterclaim
in Off-Topic General
Posted
It’s definitely grey but he should also have the right to defend his property. Realistically we’re sending a bad message that any criminal can come into your yard, steal or damage your property and outside of calling the police there’s nothing else you can do. Might as pull up a chair and yell words of encouragement.
rural crime has drastically risen over the last 5 years. And it’s not shocking to see why. Easy targets which no means of protection.