PCB

I thought I'd wade in here with a few thoughts, just to discuss a few points people have made (WARNING: very long post). First off, I have a doctorate degree in Earth Sciences, have worked as an active researcher for a number of years, and have published a number of papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I'm NOT a climate scientist, so I don't have any credentials/expertise in that field. What I do have is an extensive background in Earth Science and I know how the scientific process works from a research perspective. I also have friends/colleagues who are climate scientists and actively involved in leading research in the field. If you really want to understand the topic of climate change you need to go to the original source which is peer-reviewed scientific publications - not blogs, magazine articles, CNN, etc. The problem is that most people don't have access to the publications, and they're highly technical and require an appropriate background to really understand them.
 
As far as the debate goes there are two very important things where the debate is pretty much over among people with the credentials necessary to really understand the topic. First, since the beginning of the industrial revolution humans have pumped unprecedented amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and CO2 is very efficient at trapping heat. No debate there. Second, there is almost no debate about whether Earth's climate is getting warmer. The real debate is over what the connection is between human produced CO2 and warming, and whether there are other significant natural factors that also come in to play. Given the first two points, there really is no debate that humans have had a significant effect on global warming. The question is what the contribution is of natural causes, what steps (if any) can be taken to mitigate the effects, and what the cost-benefit is (i.e. is it worth taking any steps).
 
One topic that has been brought up in this thread is that the Earth naturally goes through variations in climate. True. In fact, the Earth's average temperature throughout its geologic history has actually been several degrees warmer than it currently is, and this is not even including the first few hundred million years when Earth was essentially a ball of molten rock. A well known example is the 135 million years when dinosaurs ruled the Earth - the average temperature was at about 5 degrees warmer. In fact, we are currently in a cool period in Earth's history with alternating cycles of ice ages and warmer periods (our current state). Why the ice ages first started is still unclear - one theory is that the rapid rise of the Himalaya's disruputed global climate patterns and changed the climate. That doesn't change the fact that human society is optimised for our current climate state, and any significant changes in climate would have significant effects on human society. Human society would likely adapt, but the time-scale to adapt will be on the order of decades, not centuries.
 
It's been mentioned in this thread that increasing output from the Sun is the cause for warming. Variations in output from the Sun of even a few percent can have a significant impact; however, actually measuring the variations accurately is surprisingly difficult. It's only been possible to get accurate measurements since we've been able to launch satellites which has only been in the last few decades. It's not really possible to establish any type of long-term pattern in solar output in that amount of time. So people who state that increasing solar output is the cause of warming, and basically state it as fact, really have little data to base it on.
 
Another topic that has been mentioned is how climate scientists flip-flop - how 40 years ago we were told we were entering an ice age and now it's the opposite. During the mid-20th century there was a global cooling - I certainly remember some pretty brutal Winnipeg winters in the 70's, and those were by Winnipeg standards. However, the idea that we were entering an ice age was pretty much a media creation - there are no scientific publications where any climate scientist claimed that. As I mentioned above, we are in a current warm period between ice ages, and it's highly likely that in a few thousand years the Earth will enter another ice age. But it's not imminent and no climate researcher ever said it was.
 
Someone in this tread said that the people mostly concerned with climate change are left-wing liberals. The many scientists I know run the full range of left-wing liberal to right-wing conservative (including climate scientists), so to catagorise everyone concerned with climate change as left-wing liberal is wrong. Just published in the Washington Post is an article about ExxonMobil executives who believe that climate change is real and a serious problem. I'm going to go on a limb and say that most of those executives are probably right-wing conservatives. And this is a multi-billion dollar company whose business relies on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/even-exxonmobil-says-climate-change-is-real-so-why-wont-the-gop/2015/12/06/913e4b12-9aa6-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html?utm_source=hootsuite
 
On a positive note, the first helium-plasma fusion device has commenced operation in Germany. This could be a crucial step towards finally achieving the holy grail of nuclear fusion, which has always been 50 years away from being 50 years away. The next step is to do it with hydrogen-plasma. A controlled hydrogen nuclear fusion reactor would essentially solve all of Earth's energy and emission problems.

Nice, you mixed this one up a bit:
 
Colour coded for ease of understanding:
 
Deny
 
Deflect
 
Denigrate

Culture barrier, language barrier - new immigrants trying to find their way.  Try to picture yourself in Syria or Palestine right now...
 
My aunt used to manage an immigrant shelter in Winnipeg - it closed a few years ago. She'd like to give you a good piece of her mind right now...

1. The person blew him/her self up - but the passport was still in good condition
 
2. The desire of US governors to ban refugees - is also politically motivated
3. The refugees who will come to Canada have been in UN refugee camps for a few years
4. How many countries are taking in refugees? I would counter that with some other questions - which are merely food for thought
a) How many countries took in Jewish refugees during the Holocaust?  Very few
 
b ) Did people / countries take a risk when they helped Jewish refugees? Absolutely
c) Was it a greater risk than taking in the current refugees?  It's hard to argue otherwise
 

"Don't even need polls. Use common sense." That is what you have just said to support your belief that a majority of a people are antithetical to you and your conception of Canada. That, unknown, is called xenophobia. 

Speak for yourself when you say this and please don't use the pronoun "our," because you certainly don't speak for all of us.
 
And the principal that you're expounding, that we should discriminate against an entire group of people because of certain individuals sharing commonalities with that group, is a dangerous one.

Pamela Geller?  Really???  This is the woman who organized the “Draw Muhammad” cartoon contest in Texas and then took no responsibility for the carnage that predictably ensued.  She is currently attempting to organize similar events but probably can not find a venue or community willing to host them.
 
You're more credible referencing Ezra and his "shiny pony" rhetoric than referencing her.

I just read the poll. It contains absolutely 0 information about Syrian refugees views about homosexuality or Judaism. None. That’s why I couldn’t find it. In fact, there is no empirical evidence provided that supports that article’s claim that “41% are jew-hating, America hating bigots,” or that 97% are-gay hating, probably woman-hating bigots.”
 
The language itself demonstrates the sentiment underlying this article though, “jew-hating,” “gay-hating,” “probably woman-hating bigots.” No empirical, legitimately done polling, would use language such as this.
 
But who needs empirical evidence anyways, as Unknown said, we “Don’t even need polls,” “common-sense” is enough.
 
And when he did provide this “evidence,” he exaggerated the percentage of individuals, in this non-existence poll, who hate Jewish people by 20%. Not to mention he modified the percentages by adding + to each one. Why if he is trying to engage in a debate rooted in objectivity and common sense, is he exaggerating the, again, nonexistent percentages or trying to distort how high they are? That is what one what does when they are trying to prove a point. In this case, that point is that Syrian refugees are incompatible with his conception of our country.
 
And to ISO and KBF, I am not against security measures, those are clearly necessary. But that is beyond the scope of what I’ve pushed back against. I’ve countered Unknown’s argument that Syrian refugees are nearly categorically incompatible with Canada.
 
So I stand by what I’ve said previously. And quite frankly to post and allow unsubstantiated information to be proliferated like this is unfair to Muslims and refugees.

I just read the poll. It contains absolutely 0 information about Syrian refugees views about homosexuality or Judaism. None. That’s why I couldn’t find it. In fact, there is no empirical evidence provided that supports that article’s claim that “41% are jew-hating, America hating bigots,” or that 97% are-gay hating, probably woman-hating bigots.”
 
The language itself demonstrates the sentiment underlying this article though, “jew-hating,” “gay-hating,” “probably woman-hating bigots.” No empirical, legitimately done polling, would use language such as this.
 
But who needs empirical evidence anyways, as Unknown said, we “Don’t even need polls,” “common-sense” is enough.
 
And when he did provide this “evidence,” he exaggerated the percentage of individuals, in this non-existence poll, who hate Jewish people by 20%. Not to mention he modified the percentages by adding + to each one. Why if he is trying to engage in a debate rooted in objectivity and common sense, is he exaggerating the, again, nonexistent percentages or trying to distort how high they are? That is what one what does when they are trying to prove a point. In this case, that point is that Syrian refugees are incompatible with his conception of our country.
 
And to ISO and KBF, I am not against security measures, those are clearly necessary. But that is beyond the scope of what I’ve pushed back against. I’ve countered Unknown’s argument that Syrian refugees are nearly categorically incompatible with Canada.
 
So I stand by what I’ve said previously. And quite frankly to post and allow unsubstantiated information to be proliferated like this is unfair to Muslims and refugees.

"Don't even need polls. Use common sense." That is what you have just said to support your belief that a majority of a people are antithetical to you and your conception of Canada. That, unknown, is called xenophobia. 

Speak for yourself when you say this and please don't use the pronoun "our," because you certainly don't speak for all of us.
 
And the principal that you're expounding, that we should discriminate against an entire group of people because of certain individuals sharing commonalities with that group, is a dangerous one.

Your arrogance is palpable. Your "common sense" does not outweigh another's opinion, or for that matter, fact. 
 
How do you not feel embarrassed to say I "did not counter your argument?" I demonstrated the facts you presented regarding homosexuality and anti-semitism are unsubstantiated. 
 
"One of the Paris killers was a refuge" so we should treat an entire people differently. That is what you are saying. Dude, you need to think about the principle you're expounding right now. It has no place here.

"Don't even need polls. Use common sense." That is what you have just said to support your belief that a majority of a people are antithetical to you and your conception of Canada. That, unknown, is called xenophobia. 

Speak for yourself when you say this and please don't use the pronoun "our," because you certainly don't speak for all of us.
 
And the principal that you're expounding, that we should discriminate against an entire group of people because of certain individuals sharing commonalities with that group, is a dangerous one.

Hoping for someone who has clearly made a football relevant again in Ottawa, which is only a good thing for the league to get injured. Classy.

Defining things you disagree with as "bullshit" and things that at least have an element of truth "lies," and then using that as a proxy to name call the people behind those statements does not make them jack arses, like you label them though. It means you disagree with them.
 
Perfect example is you calling the posts I made earlier "baffle-gab." What I posted is the law. You can debate the merits of said law, but it is the law. It's not bullshit, a lie or "baffle-gab," just because you don't like it or because it proves something you said incorrect.

Defining things you disagree with as "bullshit" and things that at least have an element of truth "lies," and then using that as a proxy to name call the people behind those statements does not make them jack arses, like you label them though. It means you disagree with them.
 
Perfect example is you calling the posts I made earlier "baffle-gab." What I posted is the law. You can debate the merits of said law, but it is the law. It's not bullshit, a lie or "baffle-gab," just because you don't like it or because it proves something you said incorrect.

First off, those people that love Harper should not be marginalized or denigrated either- they fall under the passionate clause. 
 
Secondly, you call out leftywing nuts all the time yet you HATE it when people do that about other things... if you hate it so much and think that it is such an arsehole thing to do, why do it yourself? Are you "fighting fire w/ fire" or just using it as a convenient excuse to justify your denigrating?  Either way, smacks of hypocrisy to the ninth degree.
 
Thirdly, Zero-net energy is not a lie. You would understand this if you even bothered to read the definition. Manufacturing of materials do not factor into the idea. When up and running, you put back in to the grid what you use, though renewable energy sources.
 
And lastly, the 36 billion dollar health care cut is misleading. Technically it is a reduction in the increase of health care spending...
 
-If you are annually increasing the amount to healthcare spending it is an increase. BUt if you are increasing it on an annual basis to cover rising costs and offset increasing inflation and so on by a certain amount EVERY year, then cut back on the amount of increase... that my friend IS cutting back on healthcare spending.  

KBF, I like reading some of the political discussion in this section, but I don't understand why you can't seem to have a conversation without calling the person who disagrees with you a fool, a loon, a jack-arse or some kind of other insult. Especially, after you criticized liberals for thinking they're so much smarter than everyone else in another thread.

When I realized that it was official, that we are now at 25 years of no championships 100%, I kind of got angry for about 10 seconds. I thought of all the years this team has let me down. The Grey Cup in Montreal vs Calgary comes to mind. Losing the Riders in Toronto. Bumbling all the years of Khari and Milt and choking them away in the playoffs (Losing the Cup, then the west  final, then the semi final). The embarrassment of the unfinished business campaign; the ugliest jerseys in pro sports for the last 3 (three?) years; the stadium debacle; and generally cheap management who would sooner clink plastic wine glasses at an Earls and celebrate money saved than doing things correctly.
 
Then it quickly turned to numb apathy. I grew up watching this team because my Brother, Dad, and Grandfather watched this team and loved them with me. My Dad lives in Calgary across town from me and doesn't care anymore, my brothers is in Windsor and is a Lions fan, and my Grandfather has long since passed. There's no one else here in town who cares. Why do I? This team does nothing but find new and hillarious ways to crap on all of us. The newest one is to bring back the clownshow that brought us 2 years of more terrible football. Blame Willy being hurt all you want. This team  stinks from safety to runningback and everything in between. But if you listen to some posters here, we should bring back the same crew of idiots who put this crap show together. It's like a beaten woman defending her abusive loser husband, scared of change because continuity and sticking by your man is some how perceived as admirable. It's not. It's short sighted, and gutless.
 
This franchise is a pox on my recreational life. I spend many a nights/afternoons unwinding from work watching them and it's been the worst bargain of my life for the last 25 years. I'd have been better off converting to a Stamps fan when I moved her a long time ago, but I had too much pride in my hometown to do so. In short, #&^$ this team. 
 
See you next year, of course.
 
#LifeOfaBomberFan

Here's your example of "who, me?"

Only person taking repeated shots at supporters in this thread is you...

I wouodnt be too concerned. Abrams is no great shakes but I suspext TFA will be good. LucasFilm keeps a lot of
Control.

I dont know. Do you?
 
I never specified all voters.  But there is always a lot of voters that will vote for style over substance.  And the Liberals know that and run ads to capitalize on it.

He's pretty deserving of the bashing.  He has no substance to anything he says.  But never discount the voters who dont know/dont care about the issues and see a young, good looking guy with a name they recognize. 
 
But his rise has also corresponded to the decline in the NDP.  The benefit of the Liberals is they can draw from both factions of undecided or disillusioned who dont want to switch all the way right or all the way left.  He's seen as the safe place to park a vote.