Wanna-B-Fanboy
-
Posts
9,013 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
39
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by Wanna-B-Fanboy
-
-
1 hour ago, Floyd said:
So we cant afford-dont need Harris but Ottawa signs him as a backup... Desjardin schooling Walters again.
Not the same situation:
Wily is South of 30 with many years ahead of him as franchise QB.
Burris is north of Methuselah's age, probably in his final year for Harris to Transition into Franchise QB.
So no, "Desjardin schooling Walters again" is a silly thing to say.
-
1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:
At this rate, Hilary is looking like a damn savior of US politics.
Forget Hilary- they NEED Bernie.
- FrostyWinnipeg and Jimmy Pop
-
2
-
Good Gravy! I am loving this Republican race! I would LOVE a Trump/Palin ticket!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/palin-trump-campaign-boag-1.3413174
QuoteTed Cruz has tried awfully hard to be the best of Washington outsiders.
The Republican Senator from Texas, now presidential candidate, built his name on aggravating the party establishment when he led the politically disastrous government shutdown a couple of years ago.
Some of his colleagues hated him for that. Senator John McCain told Cruz: "Stop, you're wrong, you're crazy!"
But that was exactly what Cruz wanted to hear from a Washington insider like McCain. He liked being the bad boy, and he wore the insults proudly.
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz greets audience members as he arrives for a campaign town hall in Exeter, N.H., on Wednesday. Outsider enough? (Brian Snyder/Reuters)
As the establishment grudgingly watched, Cruz quickly became the country's best-known Republican freshman on Capitol Hill.
Then, after only two years in the Senate, he launched his presidential campaign as a Christian conservative and — most important — Washington outsider.
For a while the plan unfolded as he'd hoped. Cruz slowly made his way to the front of the Republican race. But then Sarah Palin happened.
Palin has been hanging around the Republican race for months without making much noise.
When she popped up Tuesday, endorsing Donald Trump, the loud bang you heard was a Cruz balloon bursting.
Donald Trump calls Sarah Palin "a high quality person whom I have great respect for." (Mark Kauzlarich/Reuters)
She'd arrived to remind voters that no one knows better than she where "outside Washington" really is.
And apparently it's in Trumpville.
Paradoxically, Palin is a Washington insider's creation. McCain himself lifted her onto the national stage when he picked her as his running mate on the Republican presidential ticket in 2008.
The thought of a vice-president Sarah Palin just "one heartbeat away" from the nuclear launch codes made some Americans jumpy and helped Republicans lose the White House.
Many voters, however, were thrilled to discover she existed.
Since then, she has become a sort of socio-political inkblot test: tell me what you see, and I'll tell you who you are. That's because of moments such as this from the 2008 campaign:
Katie Couric, then anchor of CBS Evening News, asked Palin in an interview which newspapers and magazines she regularly read.
"I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media," said Palin.
"Specifically?" asked Couric, "I'm curious."
Name a few
"All of 'em. Any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years," said Palin.
"Can you name a few?" Couric persisted.
"I have a vast variety of sources, where we get our news," said the former Alaska governor.
And then she decided she'd had enough.
"Alaska isn't a foreign country," she bristled. "It's kind of suggested it seems like, 'Wow! How could you keep in touch with [what] the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking and doing when you live up there in Alaska?'"
Some saw a candidate for high office struggling and failing to prove that she actually bothered to read the front page of a newspaper once in a while.
For them, Palin was a joke.
Others saw an unpretentious, folksy straight talker deftly shrugging off a "gotcha'" headlock from a smarty-pants, media diva.
'Talking yam'
For them Palin was a champion.
It seemed that to "get" her you had to understand what she was saying, and that was harder for some than for others.
That's happening again, as pundits and tweeters go over Palin's performance endorsing Trump on Jan. 19. An "alliance between a vulgar talking yam and Princess Dumbass of the Northwoods," said one.
No one "gets it" like she does, said Donald Trump. More important, Trump knows that a lot of Iowa Republicans "get" her, too.
The notion that Palin gives Trump some extra bona fides as a conservative is probably beside the point.
True, she's strongly anti-abortion, and that has earned her enthusiastic and valuable approval from evangelicals, but voters likely know that neither Trump nor Palin is as hard-core conservative as Cruz.
Personal guarantee
What Republicans who "get" her like about Palin is the same thing they seem to like about Trump: Both howl that the country just doesn't work the way they believe it once did and still should.
It's the inner thing that swells up when Trump says, "What the hell is going on?"
Besides being a high-profile Republican woman, Palin brings to Trump's campaign her personal guarantee that he really is what he says he is.
Cruz can match the passion and the anger, but he's not as good with the magic Trump and Palin have for non-specific, open-ended language that connects to the angst of the low-information, middle-aged white people who are flocking to them.
"Are you ready to make America great again?" they ask, and it means whatever their audience wants it to mean.
She can pick a winner
At his core, Cruz is the guy who was studying Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman when he was just 13. He's the guy who eagerly dived into the weeds of "constitutional textualism" when he was at Princeton and Harvard universities.
Esoteric passions such as those would hardly feel like a shot of adrenalin to a Trump/Palin audience. More like a tranquillizer dart.
So Cruz could have really used Palin's support. And consequently, just by turning away from Cruz she's done plenty for Trump.
Plus, as one talking head on cable news said Tuesday night, Palin adds fun to a campaign that already looked like fun.
Or as Cruz said of Palin after she endorsed him for Senate in 2012, "She knows how to pick winners."
-
11 minutes ago, Fan Boy said:
How many different ways are there to go after free agents? I imagine a phone call to the player's agent is the most popular way. You figure some other way will work better. I'd like to hear about it.
Maybe Standing outside said free agent's home with megaphone in hand...
Stripper-gram?
Novelty fortune cookie?
I dunno, just floating some ideas here.
Edit: I like quoting your posts- give a whole new (and natural) dynamic to our forum names.
-
If our team starts taking on the persona of it's head coach and starts playing the Way MOS did, people will be coming out in droves.
-
23 hours ago, bearpants said:
Thanks for the info... sounds like just watching them in order 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3 is the best way to go about it...
Actually, I would recommend the "Machete Mash-up".
Watch in this order:
IV: A New Hope
V: Empire Strikes Back
II: Attack of the clones
III: Revenge of the Sith
VI: Return of The Jedi
Skip I: The Phantom Menace all together.
It helps preserve the surprise factor in many instances and sets up nicely Luke's struggle. Huge bonus... Jar Jar Binks gets less than a dozen lines.
Interesting tidbit to make II much less painful to watch: There is a rumour that Obi Wan and Padme might have had some fling early on, or something but are downplaying it.
Edit: But really, you don't even need to bother with I, II or II. Its more there for back story more than anything really.
As long as you watch IV, V and VI- that's integral.
-
insults are easy. For example you have a habit of attacking
People but it doesn't make you sound nearly as wise as you think it does.
Sorry TUP,
I am not attacking you personally- just your grasp on science.
You are a good egg, I have admired many of your posts on Football, movies and so on- but not your take on science. Don't take it personally- I don't believe I have attack anyone personally on these boards- If I have, I am sorry.
-
In 1000 years when Florida is finally under water there will still be climate change chicken littles saying "see we've been saying this for 1000 years and you wouldn't listen. Now look".
Well, the above sounds like something you would spout off sans-sarcasm- you can't fault me.
Lol @wannabe. Not sure what was "wrong" in my post considering it was sarcasm. You know the earth has been colder than now and hotter than now right? You know it's cyclical right? Lol
You are not wrong with these statements... however, in the context you are implying- you are just plain wrong.
-
Look, you can be a giant jerk here, that's fine. You are just like every single other warm-monger I know, who just twists words and then calls you names if you dare disagree with the bogus "consensus". What I said was that there have been zero predictions about man-made climate change that have come true. Zero. So why is that if the "science" is so solid? That's all I said. I didn't mention evolution or gravity, so why even bring them up?Just saying, "every single prediction made by said "science" been dead wrong?" gives us a clear indication where you two are coming from- there really is no room at the grown up table for you two, you guys get relegated to the kiddie table.
The thing is, you don't give any stock to science- it is difficult to have a rational and realistic discussion when you don't even acknowledge science.
Listening to you is akin to having a discussion about Evolution that doesn't give any legitimacy to scientific evidence... if someone who does not believe in science begins to shout and yell about Adam and Eve, they are quickly cut out of the discussion or given very little credibility if any.
You have no credibility when discussing the science or evidence of AGW.
This is not to say you don't have valid concerns, don't get me wrong, you have very legitimate concerns you just refuse to take into consideration the evidence and science in your concerns.
-
Miami is going to be the North American city that takes it hardest earliest from sea level rise.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/11/miami-drowning-climate-change-deniers-sea-levels-rising
According to the article, that part of South Florida is built at low elevation on porous sandstone. When the sea levels rise, the water will saturate the rock and from there, the sewers. Miami Beach is already hurting from this. We will see what happens.
Would love to hear perspectives on this from our earth science people.
(yes, it's the Guardian, they are a filthy partisan media outfit)
Except that Miami was supposed to be under water several years ago, and it still hasn't happened. If the science is "solid", why has every single prediction made by said "science" been dead wrong?
In 1000 years when Florida is finally under water there will still be climate change chicken littles saying "see we've been saying this for 1000 years and you wouldn't listen. Now look".
There is sooo much wrong in these two post- all you get is a snide remark, sorry.
I am starting to expect a few gems from you two:
-the earth is only 6000 yrs old- dinosaur bones? those were put here as God's test or the devil to trick us
-Gravity has not been proven, it's only a theory.
-Evolution? Just a theory, unless you include mud or clay as a point of origin.
-Earth is round? Come on!
-Earth goes around the sun? MADNESS!
Just saying, "every single prediction made by said "science" been dead wrong?" gives us a clear indication where you two are coming from- there really is no room at the grown up table for you two, you guys get relegated to the kiddie table.
-
There is so much awesome in this post.
-
The sea level will rise regardless of human intervention. We all accept that is true don't we?
The sun will explode, regardless of human intervention. We all accept this is true don't we?
Seriously, what's your ******* point?
-
Conrad Black weighs in on the Paris Man-Made Climate Change fairy-tale conference:
Conrad Black: The great climate conference charade playing out in ParisDecember 5, 2015
The opening of the Paris conference on climate change will be the occasion for the customary lamentations about the imminent demise of life on Earth if we do not pull up our socks as a species and reduce carbon emission levels, and thus avoid the toasting of the world. The adduced scientific evidence does not justify any such state of alarm. Every sane and informed person in the world is concerned about pollution and demands vigilance about any clear trends of climate change and any convincing evidence that human behaviour influences the climate.
Because the Copenhagen climate Conference of 2009 had promised agreement on imposition of dramatic measures to reduce fossil fuel use and resulting carbon emissions, thus avoiding apprehended rises in world temperature, and broke up in acrimonious farce and recrimination, the Paris conference has been more carefully and less ambitiously prepared.
Smyth: Canada sent 383 people to the UN climate conference, more than Australia, the U.K. and U.S. together
The massive Canadian contingent at the UN climate-change conference in Paris was originally estimated at 350 people, but it appears the trans-Atlantic road trip has expanded.
The “provisional list of participants” just released by the UN has an amazing 383 names from Canada, ranking us among the largest entourages in the entire confab.
Don’t nitpick over the newly bloated number, as it’s understandable some jet-setting bureaucrats may have been initially overlooked during such a busy travel period.
If you’ve ever seen the classic Christmas film “Home Alone” you’ll know how easy it is to get the head count wrong during a mad dash to Paris.
“Canada is back, my good friends,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told the conference, and he wasn’t just blowing greenhouse gases.
At Copenhagen, the demand arose from developing countries that the economically advanced countries had permanently impaired the under-developed countries and that the $100 billion compensation fund that Obama had promised to raise for the less-advanced countries was completely inadequate, mere reparations instead of a serious response to a moral debt that could only be quantified in trillions of dollars. (Obama had no takers, including his own Congress, when his Democrats controlled it, for one cent of such payments.) Obama was unable even to get an interview with the Chinese prime minister, a historic first in lack of access for a U.S. president, as the Chinese, by far the greatest carbon emitter and polluter of all countries, cheekily set themselves at the head of the G-77 countries who with cupped hands and in stentorian voice, demanded immense monetary compensation for the sins of the carbon emitters, also led by themselves.
The world’s temperature has risen approximately one half of a centigrade degree, or almost one fahrenheit degree, in 35 years. There has been minimal global warming for 18 years, though carbon emissions in the world have steadily increased throughout that period. It is indisputable that the world has been warmer several times in its history than it is now, so whatever impact man may have on it, the world’s temperature is evidently subject to fluctuations for other reasons. There is also legitimate disagreement about the consequences of such warming as might occur. Recent research at the University of Sussex, widely recognized for its expertise in this field, indicates that warming up to 3.5 centigrade degrees from where we are now would have no appreciable impact on anything, except a positive impact where increased volumes of carbon dioxide increase arable area and make crops more drought-resistant. There has also been a good deal of reciprocally corroborating research in different countries by recognized experts that uniformly demonstrates that the world’s temperature is much less sensitive than had long been feared to increased carbon use. Antarctic polar ice is thickening and world water levels are not rising. Apocalyptic statements of imminent consequences of not reducing carbon use have been fairly thoroughly debunked.
Not only is the evidence of the effects of increased carbon use unclear, but the economic consequences of discouragement of carbon use are very clear and very harmful to the most vulnerable countries. China and India, the two most populous countries and the first and third carbon emitters, are eagerly pursuing economic growth, which is the only method for pulling the many hundreds of millions of desperately poor people in those countries upwards out of poverty, and they are not going to change policy to accommodate the militant ecologists of the West. They don’t attach the slightest credence to the alarmist comments of the more strident ecologists, other than as an excuse for demanding monetary compensation for how the economically leading countries have disadvantaged them. The International Energy Agency estimates that the underdeveloped countries as a group, will emit 70 per cent of the carbon output of the world in the next 15 years, and will be responsible for all of the increase in carbon use over that time.
President Obama has called the Paris conference a “historic turning point,” but it isn’t, and claimed (in February) that climate change was a greater problem than terrorism. He and John Kerry (secretary of state), have several times called it the world’s greatest problem. This is bunk. The pope stated that we are “at the edge of suicide.” If so, it is not for climatic reasons. (The Holy See has placated the greens, but emphasized that “The Church cannot take the place of scientists and politicians.”) Many in those groups are more impetuous in their assertions. And everyone seriously involved with the Paris conference knows that it is not really going to accomplish much. As Lord Ridley pointed out in The Wall Street Journal on Nov. 28, the NGO spokespeople attending at Paris will scream like banshees of imminent disaster, for fear of having their budgets cut, despite contrary evidence and although it is now clear that decarbonization is much more harmful to the world than increased carbon emissions.
Alternate sources of energy, such as wind and solar, are hideously more expensive and much less productive, a luxury no country can really afford, and certainly not the poorer countries. But the conference will be hamstrung. Countries will volunteer their own individual targets for reduction of carbon emissions, called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, or INDC’s. The INDC of China only predicts that such emissions will meet their peak by 2030, while, for all his militancy, President Obama’s U.S. INDC will be a reduction of 26-28 per cent in 10 years, yet the outline of hoped-for gains, which the Congress will not endorse, and for years Obama will only see as a private citizen, only calls for half the volume reduction of emissions necessary to meet his pledge. The American INDC is a scam.
Even the Obama administration is demanding an involuntary international verification mechanism (much more rigorous than what it settled for in the rather more urgent matter of Iranian nuclear military development), and the elimination of the so-called “firewall” of separate arrangements for the developed and under-developed (or developing) countries. The developing countries, led by China and India, refuse, unless they are solemnly promised a $100 billion a year climate fund, as Obama imprudently pledged at Copenhagen. This remains completely out of the question and furnished the justification in advance for the developing countries to fall short of their INDC targets, which will provide the cover for the developed countries to do the same. Everyone will solemnly announce ambitious INDCs, but there will be no verification, ample excuse for non-compliance for everyone and this charade will continue to the next portentous and verbose conference. Meanwhile, the many thousands of non-paying delegates will enjoy the delights of Paris.
Whatever Canada does is irrelevant to the world, as it is not a serious offender and only provides about 2.3 per cent of the world’s economic activity and less than one per cent of anticipated increases in carbon emissions over the next 15 years, in a total that there is no evidence will have any negative repercussions anyway. The new government has a very capable environment minister in Catherine McKenna, and doubtless she and Justin Trudeau will acquit themselves well, as long as they don’t really imagine that much will result from the Paris meeting.
What seems to have happened is that the international far left, having been decisively routed with the collapse of the Soviet Union and of international communism, has attached itself to the environmental movement, usurped the leading positions in it from the bird-watching, butterfly-collecting, and conservation organizations, and is carrying on its anti-capitalist and anarchist crusade behind the cover of eco-Armageddonism. While this has been rather skilfully executed, many office-holders and aspirants, including Obama, have used dire environmental scenarios to distract their electorates from their own policy failures, much as Arab powers have long diluted anger at despotic misgovernment by harping on the red herring of Israel.
On the subject of such things, Stephen Donziger, the much enriched champion of the Ecuadorian claimants against Chevron, whose antics I described here last week, has replied to me on his website entirely with a reference to my status as a person convicted of felonies. As readers know, I am proud to have been sent to prison for three years in the United States for crimes I would never have dreamed of committing, all of the charges of which were abandoned, rejected by jurors, or unanimously vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court, and in respect of which I received by far the largest libel settlement in Canadian history from the original sponsors of the charges. Two charges were self-servingly retrieved by a lower court panel which the high court had excoriated but remanded the vacated counts to, for ”assessment of the gravity of its errors.” This spurious resurrection does not disguise the fraudulence of the prosecution, and the last words to me from the trial judge were “The court wishes you well, Mr. Black.” This is a considerable contrast with the assertion by federal judge Lewis Kaplan of Donziger, that he had committed a vast range of grievous crimes, including racketeering, money-laundering, perjury, obstruction of justice and practically unlimited corrupt acts in pursuit of “an egregious fraud” in Ecuador. To be described as I was by such an accuser is a distinct honour.
National Post
Isn't he an ex-con? and not in the "oh, my political leanings have shifted left" ex-con... but in a "was convicted of fraud" ex-con?
-
-
It was as much a secret as Christoph Walsh being Blofeld in spectre. They tried to deny it but everyone knew the story before the movie came out.Im almost tempted to go into lockdown mode on Star Wars info for the final week. I have tickets to afternoon showing on Friday. Im a sucker for spoilers but.... I anticipate a few surprises and/or twists and it would be cool to not know going in.
Unlike say, Star Trek Into Darkness where they kept the Khan twist a secret and it was beyond stupid.
Guess I don't need to go watch Spectre now.
-
No what I'm saying is that if people don't understand the science they shouldn't be commenting on the science.
So only scientists should have an opinion?
There is contradictory "science". Seems even scientists dont know.
the problem is, there is also a lot of bullshit parading around as science that people keep bringing up.
Here are some things that we can accept as true though... The Eath has warmed and cooled on it's own for a variety of reasons in the past and will continue to do so in the future
The greenhouse effect is real, this is not up for debate
CO2 is a greehouse gas, this is not up for debate
Our species has emitted a metric **** ton of CO2 in the last 200 years, this is a fact and not up for debate.
So you put all those things together and yeah there is a whole lot of overwhelming evidence pointing towards our actions as a species impacting climate.How much? Well that's where the debate comes in, and what's to be done about it? That's the biggest debate that should be happening. The science is pretty straightforward and trying to hand wave it away with arguments like "Well the Earth warms and cools naturally" aren't scientific they're little better than being a flat earther or creationist. Just flies in the face of real science.
I ♥ you.
Aaaaand cue KBF's triple "D"
"Deny, Deflect, Denigrate"
I'm the one who "denigrates"?
Who is the one posting nonsense about "Front Groups" and only looking at one side of the whole debate?
Who is the one denigrating "Friends of Science" but turning a complete blind eye to the Tides Foundation? Who funds the Green Party in Canada? The Sierra Club? Hint - it's not Canadians.
Nice, you mixed this one up a bit:
Colour coded for ease of understanding:
Deny
Deflect
Denigrate
- PCB, sweep the leg, StevetheClub and 1 other
-
4
-
No what I'm saying is that if people don't understand the science they shouldn't be commenting on the science.
So only scientists should have an opinion?
There is contradictory "science". Seems even scientists dont know.
the problem is, there is also a lot of bullshit parading around as science that people keep bringing up.
Here are some things that we can accept as true though... The Eath has warmed and cooled on it's own for a variety of reasons in the past and will continue to do so in the future
The greenhouse effect is real, this is not up for debate
CO2 is a greehouse gas, this is not up for debate
Our species has emitted a metric **** ton of CO2 in the last 200 years, this is a fact and not up for debate.
So you put all those things together and yeah there is a whole lot of overwhelming evidence pointing towards our actions as a species impacting climate.How much? Well that's where the debate comes in, and what's to be done about it? That's the biggest debate that should be happening. The science is pretty straightforward and trying to hand wave it away with arguments like "Well the Earth warms and cools naturally" aren't scientific they're little better than being a flat earther or creationist. Just flies in the face of real science.
I ♥ you.
Aaaaand cue KBF's triple "D"
"Deny, Deflect, Denigrate"
-
MYTH: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by about 120 part per million (ppm), most of which is likely due to human-caused CO2 emissions. The RATE of growth during this century has been about 0.55%/year. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
Interesting argument. I'd like to read more. What's the source on this?
The World's Pals @:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3
This is a far more informative link to the "Friends of Science" activities, compiled by the "Center for Media and Democracy".
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science
I'd believe this so-called "Center for Media and Democracy" if they exposed Front groups, as they call them, on both sides of the debate. This just looks like a hack job on any organization that dares challenge the warm-monger apocalyptic view. A friend of mine has a double doctorate in mathematics and is a member of "Friends of Science", and believe me, he is getting nothing from "Big Oil". He just wants to inject some truth into the discussion, which a lot of people don't want to hear, mostly because they've been so brain-washed that they don't want to have to think about this anymore. He also got a kick out of those six guys that want to put the Friends of Science in jail, as he says it is nothing new, warmists are always trying to shut them up as they fear the giant gravy train of government cash is going to come to an end, and they'll have to find a new environmental issue to blow way out of proportion. It is fun to watch my friend destroy elitist liberals at parties though, who are still parroting fear-mongering lines from Al Gore's Inconvenient Lie movie from 2007. It's 2015 and not one of Al's scary predictions from that Oscar winning "documentary" have come true. Of course they didn't come true, because they were total BS.
First off here is some of the funding source complete with supported facts:
FundingThe Globe and Mail reported that FoS has taken undisclosed sums from Alberta oil and gas interests. The money was funneled through the Calgary Foundation, to the University of Calgary and on to the FOS though something called the “Science Education Fund.” [3]
The following from SourceWatch: [7]
In the course of an internal review and audit begun in March of 2007, the University determined that some of the research funds accepted on behalf of the Friends of Science “had been used to support a partisan viewpoint on climate change” and had returned unspent grant money on September 10, 2007, according to a Calgary Foundation statement (PDF).
As a consequence, the University advised FoS “that it would no longer accept funds on the organization's behalf”, according to an email from University legal counsel Elizabeth Osler sent on December 24, 2007 (PDF)
On February 17, 2008, CanWest News Service reported that UofC officials had shut down Cooper's “'Research on Climate Change' trust account”, and were about to advise Elections Canada of the University's ongoing review of the matter. [8]
SourceWatch also provides a grant history of the Calgary Foundation (PDF).
Now, of course your friend doesn't get a cheque cut and signed directly from big oil, he may even be an unpaid volunteer- but a lot of the funding comes from alberta oil and the FoS were initially set up to muddy the discussion on AGW.
Also, just because your buddy has a double Doctorate in Math (Good for him, very good accomplishment) does not make him any more knowledgeable or honest about climate change.
-
MYTH: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by about 120 part per million (ppm), most of which is likely due to human-caused CO2 emissions. The RATE of growth during this century has been about 0.55%/year. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
Interesting argument. I'd like to read more. What's the source on this?
The World's Pals @:
-
Did humans cause the last nice age too? Did humans cause the last complete ice cap melt?
Please tell me you are kidding, please tell me you have some grasp of science.
Please do not erode my faith in our educational system...
-
Besides, I am very supportive of this initiative about holding liars accountable. I think it is a cussing travesty that an extreme minority of the scientific communty can lie to muddy up general concensus and holding everyone back from actually fixing the problem... which has catastrophic consequences for a **** tonne of the population and ecosystem, all for a little (in) famous notoriety and cash from big oil. Those people should be considered criminals. Those that purposely lie when they know better, not the sheeple who believe them.
See I agree with what you wrote above, but in the total opposite way. I think that it is a cussing travesty that a website like Skeptical Science can completely manufacture the lie that there is a "general consensus" and that gullible people will just believe this and parrot it, because it is in tune with their confirmation bias. I think that what has just as catastrophic consequences for mankind is the supposed "cures" to this supposed "problem", and using "big oil" as an excuse is just a pure straw man. I think the people that have caused taxpayers in almost every country in the Western world to waste billions on useless wind and solar "green" energy solutions should be considered criminals. Look at Ontario. $37 billion wasted in the last 8 years, and yet here you are, saying that people who call this waste into question are the criminals. Think a bit here. Stop believing the lies and being a sheeple yourself.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
You know that Dr. Richard Tol said "There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct” and that “The consensus is of course in the high nineties.”
You know, the guy who's paper, the site you linked to is using right? This paper here: http://users.sussex.ac.uk/~rt220/cookerlrev.pdf page 7.
the issue Tol had was how Cook came up with the numbers... in which he then did a retake on the math and basically cherry-picked his data- Cherry picking is the tactic of focussing on specific pieces of data, often out of context, while excluding any data that conflicts with the desired conclusion.
Anyways, Bart Verheggen puts it best, “You can’t just divide the number of affirmative statements by all papers in the sample, if many papers didn’t actually stake out any position on the question at hand. The latter should logically be excluded, unless you want to argue that of all biology papers, only 0.5% take an affirmative position on evolution, hence there is low consensus on evolution.”
-
I can't believe I am even making this Thread...
But, it seems to have taken over the politics Thread so I figured we can hash this out here (though the way the conversation was heading about AGW, maybe it should have stayed in the Politics thread...
So here we go, let's have at it!
I believe there is overwhelming evidence in AGW and it is a vocal, self-serving minority of the scientific community that derail and muddy up the issue so we can not act in a constructive manner to curtail this global thread.
-
She replies oh so you don't believe in science? I said well it depends which science you read. And she was adamant that all scientists agrees on this.
That's the tricky part of this conversation, you either believe in empirical evidence backed logic (science)or you don't. It does not depend on which science, you can't pick and choose what facts you want to believe in, you have to take it as a whole. Cherry picking facts to support your already determined conclusion is not science.
Besides, I am very supportive of this initiative about holding liars accountable. I think it is a cussing travesty that an extreme minority of the scientific communty can lie to muddy up general concensus and holding everyone back from actually fixing the problem... which has catastrophic consequences for a **** tonne of the population and ecosystem, all for a little (in) famous notoriety and cash from big oil. Those people should be considered criminals. Those that purposely lie when they know better, not the sheeple who believe them.
-
I will just focus on what the government passes and does or don't do and make my judgement on that, you know the stuff that matters.
Awesome - yes you are so sophisticated and much more in tune with issues than everyone else here. Bully for you. You should let Mulcair know this as well, given he also weighed in on this issue too, even though it was trivial. Why would he do that? Oh well.
As for singling you out, you are the one who was chastising and calling out people on these boards to stop being disrespectful of the PM and the post. I didn't see anyone else doing it (calling people out for being disrespectful of The PM), if there was I am sorry for singling you out. But then all your post about JT are doing exactly what you were shitting on people for doing... so hypocrite works here.
As for singling me out, NO, I was not the one who was chastising and calling out people on these boards to stop being disrespectful. At least, I don't recall doing that. What I do recall saying was that Harper deserved to be scorned and I was fine with that, but what I didn't like was people deliberately inventing lies about Harper, and posting them here. That was wrong. So, you are wrong.
Not sure who this guy is exactly but the fact that he is associated with Rebel Media demonstrates that they have lost both their minds and their credibility......if they ever had any to begin with that is.
Very disrespectful. He's the friggen Prime Minister (or about to become). I hated it when PM Harper was personally attacked and I hate it when it's JT. Respect the position. It defeats the argument.
Now its entirely possible what this person is saying is true about Trudeau being "dumb". I dont know him. But thats a poor way to make a point.
I agree. Just like the nuts and loons attacked Harper with mostly made up gibberish and out-right lies, this video is disgraceful in the same way. I am all for criticism, but let it be fact-based. Attacking Trudeau before he's even sworn in is just sour grapes, I am afraid.
So, to make this simple:
TUP said "He's the friggen Prime Minister (or about to become). I hated it when PM Harper was personally attacked and I hate it when it's JT. Respect the position"
You Said "I agree"
Yet later on, you refer to JT as "Shiny Pony", "sunny family" that, "entitled brat" this.
I made the hypocrite comment based on this. Ironically, you were defending JT...
If I have misinterpreted the above, my apologies.
If you want to continue this, feel free to PM me so we can spare the good people in the forums.
That is all. I leave it at that.
For fun......what's our 18 game record now?
in Blue Bomber Discussion
Posted
I think we go:
12 pop-tarts - 2 stormy clouds - and 4 Buzz Aldrins
With a Grey Cup victory this year. (one of these years I will be right)