Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[Blaster86]

Poor Cap. =-o

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

On the plus side, at least you are no longer denying the impact humans are having on the environment.

Oh look....yet another ad hominem, fabricated drive by post by the king of them.

A real stunner.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Oh look....yet another ad hominem, fabricated drive by post by the king of them.

A real stunner.

just search 'Climate' and 'transplant99' if you don't remember

Originally Posted by transplant99

Here is what i dont understand though...and this comes from a complete lack of knowledge on my part admittedly.

The earth has ALWAYS had climate change...always. It heats up and cools down, always has and always will....thats all i know.

My question is this, although its clear that man is contributiing to the heating aspect at this point, how much is that contributiuon and is it worth the heavy financial burden that it appears it will be to make the changes that many claim. If things will just continue to warm up regardless of what "we" do, is the fallout of economic costs really a good idea?

If what is said in the article (regardless who printed it as the gist is from the scientists themselves) is true...what are the real ramifications of just staying the course (and as will be necessary one day anyhow), finding alternative energy sources?

Originally Posted by transplant99

Of course...why would I not?Sorry to rain on your parade of condecension.I have little doubt that man has contributed to some degree. What degeree is pretty important though when deciding to implement changes that could quite literally, affect millions of peoples ability to make a living/support their families. Not sure why that wouldn't be just as important facet of this debate as anything else.

Again, and this is where i have no idea, the earth has for its entire existance warmed and cooled. Undeniable fact. It has done so just in my lifetime as a matter of fact. So to what degree do we "tip the apple cart" chasing down a solutiuon that will never work to the degree we wish because of the cycle of warming/cooling the planet has always experienced?

There are valid points on both sides of this thing...and extremists as well, which are illustrated in this very thread alone.

Originally Posted by transplant99

So what happens when people with Earth Science degrees DONT support man-caused Global Warming?



Gore is not " a side" of things. He is an extreme part of one side who has swallowed all the attention the rest of his "side" should be getting...which is unfortunate. There IS a middle ground on this stuff but he has now won awards in 3 distinct categories and become the spokesman/martyr for something that simply does not exist as we know it.


he does so much more harm than good with his BS it's truly sad....because i do not believe ANYONE claims that climate change is happening, hat some of the more curious ones want to know is WHY its happening....he claims to have answered that and has been factually proven to be completely incorrect in his answers. He is, as the left likes to throw out there, "fearmongering". And its making him way more wealthy than he already was.
See the silliness?

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/try-it-now/?articleId=26583397

Do you guys not know how URL masking works?

This post is terrible

[OMG!WTF!]

Kind of funny...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...book-1.3247636

No truthers!

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

just search 'Climate' and 'transplant99' if you don't remember

And where in that did I deny climate change???

I have always wondered and asked the same thing...how much of it is man made and how much of it is a natural occurrence.

You just proved that again with those quotes...lol.

Again, you manufactured a drive by post because you cannot counter what was originally said and now you are resorting to obfuscating the entire matter with a claim...that was NEVER made.

You are really bad at this.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by transplant99

And where in that did I deny climate change???

I have always wondered and asked the same thing...how much of it is man made and how much of it is a natural occurrence.

You just proved that again with those quotes...lol.

Again, you manufactured a drive by post because you cannot counter what was originally said and now you are resorting to obfuscating the entire matter with a claim...that was NEVER made.

You are really bad at this.

You know exactly what you're doing.

Here's a thread where you refer to CO2 contributing to climate change a 'fringe' belief.

Originally Posted by transplant99

Just an example of why some people are somewhat skeptical that an immediate and sweeping change to everything we do (rush to judgement to put it another way) may simply not be necessary....until all the information is in.

I have read on this very board that not only are hurricanes of late more prevelant but that climate change is DIRECTLY responsible for the ferocity as well. I argued against this assertion right after Katrina when passion was at it highest. (for a very good reason)

Not saying anything like "there is no climate change/global warming"...because there is. What I still believe, along with a myriad of scientists in various disciplines, is that a warming trend on this planet is quite possibly nothing more than history repeating itself....for the umpteenth time.

No one is or can be 100% certain that man has caused the most recent event, but so many say they are. That's why this whole debate has become so polorized.

So much more needed to be learned before we can know one way or another....and sacificing thousands and thousands of livlihoods before we know for sure could be so more detrimental than waiting til we have the proof.

This guy would be the first to admit as much, although the article also includes detractors to his theory...which is par for the course on this debate at any level. My favorite quote is the last one however...makes the whole thing a bit easier to dicuss.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/0...g-climate.html

Originally Posted by transplant99

And as fringe as some of the theories that CO2 is having an effect on the earths temerature now?

Just curous.

Originally Posted by transplant99

What "vast majority" is this though? Prove it, and while you are at it, then disprove the equally respected scientists that say the whole thing is massively overblown and has been bought by the idealists of the world.



Anti-enviroment? You believe there is a mass group of people that go around wanting to destroy the enviroment? And of course they are automatically labelled right-wingers right? Maybe they are just whackos with no affiliation.....no that wouldn't allow you to paint everyone with your broad brush of hate though.



Who said it "doesnt exist"? Many are just concerned that a huge reaction to what might be a small if not normal occurence deosnt occur that ends up costing billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs....but no its all about wanting to destroy that lovely little daisy growing across the street.

Wow.

It's obvious for what it is.

[Dion]

Trudeau won’t do his math

In a recent interview with CTV Atlantic, that question was directly put to the Liberal leader and his answer, “Uhhhhh … a fair bit” made for an alarmingly novice response.

The interviewer, Steve Murphy, pressed Trudeau for clarification, eventually suggesting: “You either know and won’t say, or you don’t know.” He got no further help from the Liberal leader.

Trudeau peevishly responded: “If you want to tabulate them, you can go on our website and do that.” It was a flip and ultimately revealing response to a legitimate and predictable question.

It’s Trudeau who came up short. Then this past weekend his party finally announced its economic plan. The only problem? Trudeau wasn’t present or accountable.

Instead, Ralph Goodale — a former finance minister — and John McCallum — a former chief economist with RBC — explained their leader’s economic vision.

Credible politicians, no doubt. But they’re not running for prime minister. It’s beyond comprehension that Trudeau would fail to show up for one of the most important policy announcements of his campaign.

He increasingly appears to be a leader who can’t talk numbers, which seems odd for someone who worked, albeit briefly, as a math teacher.

And Canadians need to know the numbers before they decide which party to support.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/28...nt-do-his-math

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

On the plus side, at least you are no longer denying the impact humans are having on the environment.

Originally Posted by transplant99

Oh look....yet another ad hominem, fabricated drive by post by the king of them.

A real stunner.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

(Stuff demonstrating transplant doesn't believe in man made global warming)

Well, I think you sir have done an effective job of illustrating Transplant's view, which I have to say is clearly bogus, that humans do not contribute to climate change.

... Now, you're aware that that was still an ad hominem attack, right?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You know exactly what you're doing.

Here's a thread where you refer to CO2 contributing to climate change a 'fringe' belief.







It's obvious for what it is.

Correct...it is obvious to anyone reading that there is/was a whole lot of information out there that suggests man made emissions may or may not have a significant effect on the current global warming cycle we are in, thanks for pointing it out yet again.

I have no problem with "man" taking steps to get away with CO2 emissions and never have. What I do have a problem with is the vast amount of fear mongering that has occurred the last 15 years in regards to WHY the current cycle is evolving the way it is. Going scorched earth on it to the point we decimate an entire industry that employs millions worldwide when it may very well be a minor contributor to something that occurs all by itself is irresponsible IMO.

this planet has had cycles like this over and over and over and long before "man" arrived on it. It has seen levels of CO2 in atmosphere before that completely dwarf anything we have even come close to measuring in our existence. There are reasons for that and I think it would be beneficial to know what part that is playing now. It matters to people.


I will step aside on this now and allow you the last word as Ive wasted enough time on you.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Correct...it is obvious to anyone reading that there is/was a whole lot of information out there that suggests man made emissions may or may not have a significant effect on the current global warming cycle we are in, thanks for pointing it out yet again.

I have no problem with "man" taking steps to get away with CO2 emissions and never have. What I do have a problem with is the vast amount of fear mongering that has occurred the last 15 years in regards to WHY the current cycle is evolving the way it is. Going scorched earth on it to the point we decimate an entire industry that employs millions worldwide when it may very well be a minor contributor to something that occurs all by itself is irresponsible IMO.

this planet has had cycles like this over and over and over and long before "man" arrived on it. It has seen levels of CO2 in atmosphere before that completely dwarf anything we have even come close to measuring in our existence. There are reasons for that and I think it would be beneficial to know what part that is playing now. It matters to people.


I will step aside on this now and allow you the last word as Ive wasted enough time on you.

This post is illustrative of climate change denial.

You're digging a deeper hole for yourself.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, I think you sir have done an effective job of illustrating Transplant's view, which I have to say is clearly bogus, that humans do not contribute to climate change.

... Now, you're aware that that was still an ad hominem attack, right?

Sigh.

Entirely incorrect.

Read again...though in fairness I will admit that the contributions by man are higher than I once believed.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

... Now, you're aware that that was still an ad hominem attack, right?

I don't believe it is. My post clearly references his position on climate change.

As an individual he is referenced, but that's because he's the one holding the position referred to previously.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Sigh.

Entirely incorrect.

Read again...though in fairness I will admit that the contributions by man are higher than I once believed.

Re-read what? You refer to human caused climate change having the potential to be a, "minor contributor to something that occurs all by itself" or maybe that human caused climate change, "might be a small if not normal occurence" or that human caused climate change is, "something that simply does not exist as we know it"?

[Moderator]

Take it to PM guys. Please stay on topic.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Dion

Trudeau won’t do his math





http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/28...nt-do-his-math

This was addressed last week before the platform released. I have no issue with him not going into details in a a short tv interview if he is flat out telling the interviewer "the answers are coming." He flat out says that they are roughly 2/3rds of the way through the $10b number and they they will be releasing the exact numbers shortly (they did, and it was given some good grades by those reviewing it). The questioner kept asking for an answer that was never coming in this interview. Trudeau even says at one point "If you want to talk these numbers, bring me back in two weeks and we can discuss these questions you're asking".

Mulcair wasn't at the NDP announcement either.

Poor hatchet job by the Sun.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Legalize it. It's stupid how the Conservatives won't even consider debating it when that's what the majority of Canadians want. The role of government isn't to control how people think. It's to adhere to the will of the people. If the majority of citizens want it legalized, then it should be legalized. Harper and his party should have zero say in deciding what Canadians want.

This comment in the marijuana thread got me thinking....why don't the Liberals make a big deal out of the fact that it is what the majority of people want?

It would be akin to Harper's niqab debate about how the majority of Canadians view it....except way more relevant.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

This comment in the marijuana thread got me thinking....why don't the Liberals make a big deal out of the fact that it is what the majority of people want?

It would be akin to Harper's niqab debate about how the majority of Canadians view it....except way more relevant.

Because old people vote at a higher ratio and old people have old fashioned ideas about marijuana.

[corporatejay]

Uh oh.

In a federal leaders’ debate, when the NDP’s Tom Mulcair questioned Conservative Leader Stephen Harper on General Dynamics Land Systems Canada’s (GDLS) $15-billion deal to supply armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia, it drew fire from Unifor, the union that represents workers at the London plant.

“We have contacted the NDP about this issue,” said Fergo Berto, Unifor area director for London, adding that Unifor national president Jerry Dias spoke recently to Mulcair.

If GDLS lost the contract, it would not only mean “significant” job losses in London, he said, but he’s worried it would also hurt the plant’s ability to land future work.


“We asked the NDP to not make this an issue, that it be kept under wraps. There are a lot of issues out there to be talking about,” said Berto, adding Dias spoke to Mulcair over the weekend, after the debate last week.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...ant-job-losses

[Looch City]

Why uh-oh? The great and just Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is our true ally and friend in all aspects.