The Unknown Poster Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 Interesting. I hadn't realized Ontario flirted with allowing Sharia Law several years ago as part of a program to allow faith based arbitration of legal disputes. Omar Alghabra (MP Mississauga Centre), a Sharia Law Supporter, is the new Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs. On 02 December 2015, Prime Minister Trudeau appointed a series of Members of Parliament to be Parliamentary Secretaries. In the Canadian parliamentary system, this person is officially designated to assist their minister with minister with his or her duties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 Is this actually true?? They can't be advocating making it illegal for so called denier groups to express their positions can they? TORONTO — Six leading Canadians are calling on the Commissioner of Competition to investigate false and misleading representations made by climate change denier groups, such as Friends of Science. Ecojustice lawyer Charles Hatt filed the complaint today on behalf of Stephen Lewis, Tzeporah Berman, Dr. David Schindler, Dr. Thomas Duck, Dr. Danny Harvey, and Devon Page. “Canada needs to have an honest conversation about climate change and how we are going to accelerate our transition to clean, low-carbon energy sources,” Hatt said. “Our ability to do that is undermined when denier groups pollute the public square with falsehoods and junk science.” - See more at: http://www.ecojustice.ca/pressrelease/leading-canadians-call-for-investigation-of-climate-change-denier-groups/#sthash.iEHTIRET.dpuf 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 Sun Former prime minister Stephen Harper paid his own food bill while he lived at 24 Sussex Dr. Interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose told Evan Solomon that little tidbit on his Sirius XM radio show "Everything is Political" last week. Though they were under no obligation to do so, the Harpers figured out what the food bill would be for a family of four like theirs living in more normal circumstances and wrote a cheque to the Receiver General of Canada every month to cover the cost of that food, Ambrose said. She's encouraging Justin Trudeau to do the same thing for the two nannies he's put on the public payroll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 The interesting thing about climate change, while i think it might be somewhat over exaggerated and i just think sometimes some years are just warmer than others or colder for that matter, has to work both ways doesn't it? But I see no issue with them wanting to stop pollution, It might be disguised under the idea that it's a climate change initiative but i really don't think getting rid of the massive amounts of pollution is a problem, It's a good thing. Will it help? It might, it might not, it can't hurt tho.. Climate Change is probably a load of crap when you actually get right down to it, My parents were talking about how when they were kids there was very little snow in December here at times, some years there were tons, some years, not so much... some years it didn't snow until just b4 Christmas. My dad told me it even snowed once when he was very very young in June or July when he was out at the lake with my grandparents... This is over 50 years ago now... so... It makes you question the whole idea of climate change but if they can eliminate some of the pollution that some of these business's produce... i'm for it. I don't think i really believe climate change is real... and i really don't think there is an actual real way to prove it is or isn't... I mean, Mother Nature is a ***** some years and not so much some other years, it is what it is really. Getting rid of pollution or cutting back on the carbon emissions or whatever, it's a good thing but i don't think it's gonna make 2 shits of a difference to what the weather is like. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 I was at a party last night and someone mentions global warming as a joke because of our great weather. And I sort of scoffed and a girls says oh you don't believe in Global Warming? I said not so much man-made. 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. I asked her why the earth was devoid of ice at various times and why it was frozen at various times. And she just said oh you're a denier. I think it's great we look after the earth. But the idea that we are having this huge Impact and will destroy the world just doesn't compute for me. And the fact Al Gore and David Suzuki don't really believe it either should tell is a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanna-B-Fanboy Posted December 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark H. Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 I was at a party last night and someone mentions global warming as a joke because of our great weather. And I sort of scoffed and a girls says oh you don't believe in Global Warming? I said not so much man-made. 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. I asked her why the earth was devoid of ice at various times and why it was frozen at various times. And she just said oh you're a denier. I think it's great we look after the earth. But the idea that we are having this huge Impact and will destroy the world just doesn't compute for me. And the fact Al Gore and David Suzuki don't really believe it either should tell is a lot. There are a few areas of mass accumulation which are purely situational, as most glacial regions have suffered devastating loss of ice over the past few decades. And it isn't a matter of believing, it is a matter of observation, careful measurements, etc. Science is not trying to prove anything, it is just what it is - the reality of what is happening. But if one tries hard enough, it is easy enough to find the small anomalies that actually shows that the exception "proves" the rule - meaning to test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 I disagree. I think too many people are trying to make science prove their perspective. The idea that every scientist shares the same opinion is simply not true. If the climate change rock stars believes their own BS they wouldn't have massive carbon foot prints themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark H. Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 I disagree. I think too many people are trying to make science prove their perspective. The idea that every scientist shares the same opinion is simply not true. If the climate change rock stars believes their own BS they wouldn't have massive carbon foot prints themselves. You will always find people who don't practice what they preach. If you see a doctor or nurse smoking - will you go light one up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 No but if that nurse was widely considered to be some sort of authority on the dangers of smoking Id consider her/him to either be a gigantic hypocrit or that she doesn't believe why she's preaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 I was at a party last night and someone mentions global warming as a joke because of our great weather. And I sort of scoffed and a girls says oh you don't believe in Global Warming? I said not so much man-made. 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. I asked her why the earth was devoid of ice at various times and why it was frozen at various times. And she just said oh you're a denier. I think it's great we look after the earth. But the idea that we are having this huge Impact and will destroy the world just doesn't compute for me. And the fact Al Gore and David Suzuki don't really believe it either should tell is a lot. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark H. Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 4.8 million down the drain? Or a sound investment? Mr Dee 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanna-B-Fanboy Posted December 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 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.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 Did humans cause the last nice age too? Did humans cause the last complete ice cap melt? This is my issue. It's a chicken little thing. The earth warms and cools with no Impct from humans. We might be impactinf it to a degree. But trying to convince people that tje earth hAs always and will always maintain a stable temperature if only we spend billions of dollars and everything else is irresponsible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanna-B-Fanboy Posted December 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 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... Well you make a good point. Oh wait. You didn't make a point at all. Climate oscillation through history tells us the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles that are obviously not caused by humans. I'm no expert. But but if you think expending massive resources and billions of dollars will ***** the planets normal climate culled, well....I would respectfully disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark H. Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 If the $$ will reduce carbon emissions and lead to a greater variety of energy sources, I for one will support that. Even if they had 0 impact on climate change, it's the simple fact that hydrocarbons are not renewable. The key will diversified energy resources in the future. The Unknown Poster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 If the $$ will reduce carbon emissions and lead to a greater variety of energy sources, I for one will support that. Even if they had 0 impact on climate change, it's the simple fact that hydrocarbons are not renewable. The key will diversified energy resources in the future. I dont think anyone would argue that seeking newer, better forms of energy is not a worthy endeavor. But measured and reasonable. I dislike the oil companies as much as the next person. I thought by now we'd all have a small nuclear reactor or fuel cell in our homes that would power everything including our cars forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 Opposition response to throne speech: Conservative Party @CPC_HQ 9m9 minutes ago .@RonaAmbrose: "We will be the taxpayer’s watchdog." #cdnpoli Conservative Party @CPC_HQ 7m7 minutes ago .@RonaAmbrose: We believe that the money Canadians work hard for is better left in their pockets than in the hands of politicians. #cdnpoli Conservative Party @CPC_HQ 7m7 minutes ago .@RonaAmbrose: "It’s alarming that the threat of ISIS... didn’t warrant a mention in the Throne Speech." #cdnpoli Conservative Party @CPC_HQ 5m5 minutes ago .@RonaAmbrose: While our allies are ramping up efforts [vs ISIS], Trudeau believes posing for selfies is a better use of his time. #cdnpoli Conservative Party @CPC_HQ 5m5 minutes ago .@RonaAmbrose: The reality is when we talk about Canada’s new approach to fighting ISIS, Canada isn’t back, Canada is backing away. #cdnpoli Conservative Party @CPC_HQ 3m3 minutes ago .@RonaAmbrose: The question every taxpayer wants us to ask Liberals is “where will the money come from to pay for all their promises?” Conservative Party @CPC_HQ 2m2 minutes ago .@RonaAmbrose: We have no indication the PM and his Finance Minister have a plan, beyond hoping the budgets will finally balance themselves. Conservative Party @CPC_HQ 2m2 minutes ago .@RonaAmbrose: We will continue to demand a fiscally responsible approach that is fair to all Canadians. We will be a voice for taxpayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 If the $$ will reduce carbon emissions and lead to a greater variety of energy sources, I for one will support that. Even if they had 0 impact on climate change, it's the simple fact that hydrocarbons are not renewable. The key will diversified energy resources in the future. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 Please do not erode my faith in our educational system... 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted December 8, 2015 Report Share Posted December 8, 2015 Understanding the importance of empowering his caucus, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau last week instructed his Cabinet ministers to attend all weekly national caucus meetings. He also used the occasion of the 184-member Liberal caucus’s first meeting in early November to introduce his top aides, saying that any communication from them should be considered as coming from him, Liberal sources told The Hill Times. Mr. Trudeau sent the message at the first meeting of Liberal MPs that principal secretary Gerald Butts and chief of staff Katie Telford are his inner circle and that they speak for him, a Liberal source told The Hill Times. ****is this normal practice? I used to watch the West Wing and they treated the CoS as word of Bartlet so perhaps it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark H. Posted December 8, 2015 Report Share Posted December 8, 2015 No surprise - no way do they win that majority without Gerald Butts at the helm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted December 8, 2015 Report Share Posted December 8, 2015 Didn't he promise to reverse this? PM won't commit to fully restore mail home delivery, but vows no new community boxes. Will consult with Cda Post on next steps. #cdnpoli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now