sam13371337 Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 its funny how indoctrinated and brainwashed people have become over this 'global warming' issue. being promoted by self serving "scientists" who make outrageous salaries to promote this, plus government officials who see their biggest cash cow since the "temporary income tax to pay for ww1". they still haven't paid for the war yet... just keep paying them a little more. and for those climatist people. this carbon tax grab doesn't have to come from the government you know? we don't need to pay thieves in Ottawa our hard earned money to save the planet us for us? you can voluntarily pay up to 100% of your income personally to Trudeau if you wish to save the planet. just don't put a gun to someone elses head, and put your hands in their pocket for your world saving endeavours please. from now on, I proudly support global warming. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 9 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said: this is a good thing. Yes I prefer Liberal governments, but not if they are going to make crappy legislation. Now they are forced to go back and get it right or let it die. Same thing is happening with C-69, over 100 amendments to that just got through committee. Even Kenney is happy: https://globalnews.ca/news/5286251/senate-committee-passes-bill-c-69-amendments/ Honestly Jim, McKenna is the problem. I actually agree with JTs environment approach, we need to invest in a greener future but we need to make money today. McKenna needs to go as environment minister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 5 hours ago, sam13371337 said: its funny how indoctrinated and brainwashed people have become over this 'global warming' issue. being promoted by self serving "scientists" who make outrageous salaries to promote this, plus government officials who see their biggest cash cow since the "temporary income tax to pay for ww1". they still haven't paid for the war yet... just keep paying them a little more. and for those climatist people. this carbon tax grab doesn't have to come from the government you know? we don't need to pay thieves in Ottawa our hard earned money to save the planet us for us? you can voluntarily pay up to 100% of your income personally to Trudeau if you wish to save the planet. just don't put a gun to someone elses head, and put your hands in their pocket for your world saving endeavours please. from now on, I proudly support global warming. This scientist bit is hogwash. I have explained this to a few people. That 97% bit has been misrepresented so badly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: Honestly Jim, McKenna is the problem. I actually agree with JTs environment approach, we need to invest in a greener future but we need to make money today. McKenna needs to go as environment minister. tbh I really have never paid attention to her. I can see that she gets under the skin of a lot of CPC supporters for some reason but I don't know what that is. I'm happy to see C69 has a chance of moving forward with support from all sides. Edited May 17, 2019 by Jimmy McGill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said: tbh I really have never paid attention to her. I can see that she gets under the skin of a lot of CPC supporters for some reason but I don't know what that is. Because she would destroy the Canadian economy to pursue her environment goals. These terrible bills actually make her judge and jury. We all know that we need to make changes but drastic measures that hurt millions of Canadians is not the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 Just now, Ryan Strome said: Because she would destroy the Canadian economy to pursue her environment goals. These terrible bills actually make her judge and jury. We all know that we need to make changes but drastic measures that hurt millions of Canadians is not the answer. ah OK. I guess i wasn't paying attention maybe its like when JT appointed Monsef to run the proportional gov't stuff, I knew right then to not give it 5 minutes, it was doa. I'm actually encouraged by the new form of the senate - its made a number of really postive changes to bills, this one by far being the most extensive. It may have never worked better in fact. Given that it would take a miracle to remove it or make it elected, its great to see people standing up for their regions and constituent industries and making good changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: ah OK. I guess i wasn't paying attention maybe its like when JT appointed Monsef to run the proportional gov't stuff, I knew right then to not give it 5 minutes, it was doa. I'm actually encouraged by the new form of the senate - its made a number of really postive changes to bills, this one by far being the most extensive. It may have never worked better in fact. Given that it would take a miracle to remove it or make it elected, its great to see people standing up for their regions and constituent industries and making good changes. I will 100% support a Senate if it continues to work like this. Accountability is a good thing. Monsef does however seem very personable and pleasant. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 44 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: I will 100% support a Senate if it continues to work like this. Accountability is a good thing. Monsef does however seem very personable and pleasant. I think it might be working better than Trudeau intended I don't have an issue with Monsef personally, just knew when that file was given to a person with zero experience that the idea was dead. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miler Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 3 hours ago, Ryan Strome said: This scientist bit is hogwash. I have explained this to a few people. That 97% bit has been misrepresented so badly. Hard to believe anyone still quotes the 97% thing. The smallest amount of inquiry shows it to be a lie. Anyone quoting it is a moron or a politician. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 21 minutes ago, Miler said: Hard to believe anyone still quotes the 97% thing. The smallest amount of inquiry shows it to be a lie. Anyone quoting it is a moron or a politician. What is NASA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miler Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 45 minutes ago, Jack_T said: What is NASA? OMG. You must be kidding. They are still debasing themselves like this? You'll have to give a link. I can't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 52 minutes ago, Miler said: OMG. You must be kidding. They are still debasing themselves like this? You'll have to give a link. I can't see it. There is no real debate within academia regarding anthropogenic climate change and it is widely accepted outside of institutions such as heartland, Fraser etc (you get the idea...). You might argue the 97 per cent figure on a semantic level, but it conveys reality. “We are more sure that greenhouse gas is causing climate change than we are that smoking causes cancer.” - Kate Marvel, Nasa atmospheric scientist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miler Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 52 minutes ago, Jack_T said: There is no real debate within academia regarding anthropogenic climate change and it is widely accepted outside of institutions such as heartland, Fraser etc (you get the idea...). You might argue the 97 per cent figure on a semantic level, but it conveys reality. “We are more sure that greenhouse gas is causing climate change than we are that smoking causes cancer.” - Kate Marvel, Nasa atmospheric scientist. Well Kate should know only 43% of climate scientists are as sure about things as she is. About 70% are pretty sure any warming effect is mainly caused by humans. Actually, I might also fall into that category. But If it's about warming caused by human CO2 emissions only, I would be out. I'm sure a few more of the climatologists would join me. So, stick to facts, not nonsense, so real discussions can occur. https://climatechangedispatch.com/254-new-papers-support-climate-skepticism/amp/ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 8 hours ago, Miler said: Well Kate should know only 43% of climate scientists are as sure about things as she is. About 70% are pretty sure any warming effect is mainly caused by humans. Actually, I might also fall into that category. But If it's about warming caused by human CO2 emissions only, I would be out. I'm sure a few more of the climatologists would join me. So, stick to facts, not nonsense, so real discussions can occur. https://climatechangedispatch.com/254-new-papers-support-climate-skepticism/amp/ “This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence” https://science2017.globalchange.gov/ I encourage you to refer to this report as a resource in the future. Although I’m not sure if it references any of your sources, such as the climate dispatch or the no tricks zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miler Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Jack_T said: “This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence” https://science2017.globalchange.gov/ I encourage you to refer to this report as a resource in the future. Although I’m not sure if it references any of your sources, such as the climate dispatch or the no tricks zone. Our discussion was about the 97% lie. Here is a reference for that. The previous reference was to illustrate the robust discussion which continues and is probably accelerating. https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#55dfde691157 Edited May 18, 2019 by Miler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 18 minutes ago, Miler said: Our discussion was about the 97% lie. Here is a reference for that. The previous reference was to illustrate the robust discussion which continues and is probably accelerating. https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#55dfde691157 this is a meaningless red herring of a tack. We have to act regardless of pissing matches over "cause". We know we can have a significant impact on emissions. We know we need to better prepare our coastal cities. These sorts of rabbit hole debates are just about delaying and doing nothing, which isn't acceptable anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miler Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 30 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: this is a meaningless red herring of a tack. We have to act regardless of pissing matches over "cause". We know we can have a significant impact on emissions. We know we need to better prepare our coastal cities. These sorts of rabbit hole debates are just about delaying and doing nothing, which isn't acceptable anymore. If we stop quibbling about the cause and just go with provable fact, we will do nothing at all. Sea level rise has not changed in our lifetime. All the extra CO2 hasn't changed a thing. It will be a century before we have to lay down a few sandbags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 48 minutes ago, Miler said: If we stop quibbling about the cause and just go with provable fact, we will do nothing at all. Sea level rise has not changed in our lifetime. All the extra CO2 hasn't changed a thing. It will be a century before we have to lay down a few sandbags. i'm not following you down the hole champ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miler Posted May 19, 2019 Share Posted May 19, 2019 (edited) 22 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said: i'm not following you down the hole champ. A rabbit hole? I'd like an answer to the question. I wonder if anyone has one. Edited May 19, 2019 by Miler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2019 Share Posted May 19, 2019 Ill just leave this link here again: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/12/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now