kelownabomberfan

LOL - Desmog blog - dedicated to discrediting anybody, especially scientists, who doesn't fall in line with the cultist doom-saying AGW apocalypse. Oh no! A scientist who says AGW fear-mongering is nonsense has a brother in law who once pumped gas at Exxon in high school, so therefore he is "in the pay of Big Oil!" Just a load of total crap.

Is it, though? Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide The demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life and has little correlation with global temperature.

I was told we were all going to die of acid rain. If we even lived long enough, as Reagan and Thatcher, those evil right-wing capitalists, were going to destroy the world with nukes.

What? Uber isn't allowed in Manitoba? What the hell? Is this Canada or East Germany?

My faith in our educational system was eroded a long time ago. All I have to do is listen to the leftist crap that my nieces and nephews are force-fed every day in our current system, and that was enough. In the long run, if the world continues to not warm, and none of the predictions that are being made by AGW fear-mongerers comes true, then maybe, just maybe this hoax will finally die, like the global cooling hoax of the 1970's. However, even if nothing continues to happen, as nothing has happened, and even if the predictions continue to never come true (none have by the way, even though "science" says that they were supposed to come true), the kids nowadays have all been brain-washed. They have been told that AGW is true by their teachers, and so the next generation coming up has already been told not to question, and not to think. Just accept. Much like a cult. You aren't allowed to say "hey wait a minute, nothing you've said has ever come true". Just shut up, and let the state tell you what kind of energy is acceptable, and what you will pay for it. And that's not right.

Nuclear is the only way to go. Even some of the most virulent and steadfast "believers" in the AGW fear-mongering scare are behind Nuclear power, including George Monbiot. I don't think that AGW actually exists, but I fully support moving off of fossil fuels to nuclear power, as fast as possible. Nuclear power is 100% CO2 free, and actually makes money in the long run, while wind power is a giant joke. You are never going to wean an energy source off of the government teat when a wind turbine takes more energy to actually create than it produces in its life cycle.

Here's one of the many reasons that I think the IPCC is just another corrupt money-sucking UN organization, bent on grabbing as much power as possible without holding those nasty things called "elections":

There is plenty of evidence that the current warming trend is both more severe and more rapid than the natural cycle of warming and cooling that the Earth has undergone historically. I find this defeatist attitude very depressing. Did not humanity act quickly to save the ozone layer from CFCs? Granted that was a much smaller issue as our lives weren't dependent on CFCs, but the point still stands that humanity can act with self preservation in mind when we put our minds to it. No there isn't plenty of evidence. This just isn't true. And the fact that people like you have swallowed this malarkey wholesale is what is truly depressing.

I believe that the climate is always changing. I also think that billions upon billions of dollars already spent have been a massive waste of resources that could have been spent in many many other ways to benefit mankind. Is man generated CO2 affecting the climate? Maybe. Let's actually prove it first, then see if we can slow or stop it. Meanwhile millions of Africans can be brought out of poverty. Save them first. Then waste money on unproven hypotheses.

Mike Kelly would agree with you Iso.

ok, then I stand corrected.

I wonder what Darren Sproles would have done as a player if he had played during that time period.

I was watching the Carolina/New Orleans game today and Delvin Breaux made an interception. Joe Buck, the Fox announcer, gave a back-story on Breaux, including his spinal issues and his recovery, then he said something like "he couldn't get a look in the NFL, and was forced to go play semi-pro ball in the CFL". I of course reacted negatively to that comment with some four letter expletives hurled at the TV as I took Buck's comment as an arrogant insult from an American bozo (kind of like that other Fox clown that was doing the baseball and insulted Canada), but then I reflected on this statement. Is the CFL a true "professional" league, or is it "semi-pro" - and I honestly don't even know what "semi-pro" means. If you get paid to play a sport, and fans show up and pay to watch you play it, then you are a professional player. Right? Opinions?

LOL - yeah if you want to stop a party of liberal elitists cold just say "Al Gore is an idiot and David Suzuki is a fraud and anyone who joins the man-made climate change cult is a freaking moron". You'll hear a record scratch, and everything stops dead. Then be prepared to be assaulted with all of the usual bullshit, especially the 97% consensus lie. It is actually hilarious to watch the reaction, as with a lot of these people, the AGW fraud is a religion to 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

I think this kind of crap is only going to get worse, as the main goal of the cultists in this AGW religion is a completely government-controlled economy as was the case under communism. All energy sources will be controlled by the state, and we will be told that it must be done to "save the earth", even though it is a giant load of crap. Suzuki started this nonsense when he called on "deniers" to be jailed, and now with his idiotic comparison of oil companies to slave owners. That guy definitely has dementia.

Thanks to brainless energy policy and rush into horribly expensive wind and solar power by the Liberals in Ontario, Ontarians have paid $37 billion more for electricity then they needed to in the past eight years. Just unbelievable, the waste and gross negligence of the government of Ontario in implementing these terrible policies. Shame! http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2015/12/02/ontario-consumers-likely-paying-billions-extra-for-hydro-one-decisions-auditor-general.html

Conrad Black weighs in on the Paris Man-Made Climate Change fairy-tale conference: Conrad Black: The great climate conference charade playing out in Paris December 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

Even Green MLA, Andrew Weaver, is calling this a big waste of tax payer's money. Not only that, but we have 800 tonnes of carbon dioxide produced, which is equivalent to greenhouse gas emissions from 153 cars, almost 2 million miles driven, and 260 tons of garbage sent to the dump.

Michael Smyth: Canada’s massive Paris contingent almost outnumbers France 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. Canada has sent more people to Paris than Australia (46), the U.K. (96), the U.S. (148), Russia (313) and almost as many as host-country France (396). Not a bad turnout for a country that emits just 1.6 per cent of the planet’s greenhouse gases, eh? Or maybe it’s not something to admire when you consider how much polluting fossil fuel was burned to fly so many hundreds of people across the ocean to talk about burning less. Looking down the list of Canada’s participants in Paris, it’s hard not to conclude we’re vastly over-represented. Did we really need to send the deputy environment minister for the Northwest Territories? Theclimate-change youth ambassador for the Yukon? The leader of the New Brunswick Green Party? The interim leader of the Bloc Quebecois and his press secretary? The “security co-ordinator” for Hydro-Quebec? Many of these fine folks are so marginal to the climate-change file that calling them “bit players” would be a stretch. Premier Christy Clark is there, of course, though critics says she’s just taking credit for someone else’s work. (Former premier Gordon Campbell brought in B.C.’s groundbreaking carbon tax, which Clark promptly froze in 2012). But while Clark has been called a laggard on the climate-change issue, she’s no slouch when it comes toclimate-change photo-ops. Clark’s entourage includes her “official photographer” and her “events co-ordinator.” Hey, who could save the planet without them? Back home, meanwhile, Clark’s “Climate Leadership Team” just reported that the government will fail to meet its own greenhouse-gas reduction targets and called on Clark to double the carbon taxwithin five years. The government said it won’t do that unless “emission-intensive, trade-exposed” industries are“fully protected” from any tax hikes. That’s clearly meant as a reassuring signal to the big oil-and-gas companies Clark wants to lure to B.C. to build her promised liquefied natural-gas industry. But that’s all down the road. For now, it’s time for another climate-change photo-op in Paris. Mon Dieu, I shudder to think what it’s all costing taxpayers. http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michael-smyth-canadas-massive-paris-contingent-almost-outnumbers-france&pubdate=2015-12-03

I know John A. Macdonald made the direct leap from raging alcoholic to PM. You would have to be an alcoholic to dream up the idea of this giant frozen land mass full of beavers and hosers one day being a country.

Well that's just silly.

The Toronto media thinks that "JVR" is on par with Patrick Kane or Tyler Seguin. They would demand Ladd, Buff, Schief and two first round draft picks in exchange.