Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum
Register Forum Rules FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-21-2016, 03:39 PM   #461
LanceUppercut
Scoring Winger
 
LanceUppercut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Springfield
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oilyfan View Post
How does separating into a landlocked country with no access to ports better for building pipelines?
We'd be Puerto Rico! Become a independent US protectorate and watch how fast a pipeline south would get built.
LanceUppercut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2016, 06:06 PM   #462
afc wimbledon
Franchise Player
 
afc wimbledon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: east van
Exp:
Default

We're never going to have a federal government that is strong enough to 'ram' anything through. The left and right, east west and Quebec voting blocs means that neither Tories or Liberals will feel secure enough to annoy the bejesus out of the urban vote in BC and Ontario.
afc wimbledon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2016, 06:17 PM   #463
Slava
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon View Post
We're never going to have a federal government that is strong enough to 'ram' anything through. The left and right, east west and Quebec voting blocs means that neither Tories or Liberals will feel secure enough to annoy the bejesus out of the urban vote in BC and Ontario.
At some point there has to be someone in power with a grander vision of the country though. The kind of thinking that allowed for the railroad to be built and someone willing to spend the political capital to do that.

We also might have to get someone to look long and hard at the science and realise that "global warming" is a joke. I realise that I run the risk of being branded as a guy who doesn't follow science or labelled as a science denier, and I have zero desire to get into an argument about that, particularly in this thread. I just feel like we've been sold a false bill of goods on this.
Slava is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
Old 01-21-2016, 10:42 PM   #464
Tinordi
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Exp:
Default

I would never trust my money to a money manager who believed in conspiracy theories and dismissed decades of scientific research. Stunning you would admit that Slava.
Tinordi is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Tinordi For This Useful Post:
Old 01-21-2016, 10:45 PM   #465
Tinordi
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12 View Post
How is this different than the status quo?
The new country would not be a member of NAFTA as one obvious and significant difference.
Tinordi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2016, 11:10 PM   #466
rubecube
Franchise Player
 
rubecube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava View Post

We also might have to get someone to look long and hard at the science and realise that "global warming" is a joke. I realise that I run the risk of being branded as a guy who doesn't follow science or labelled as a science denier, and I have zero desire to get into an argument about that, particularly in this thread. I just feel like we've been sold a false bill of goods on this.
Yikes.
rubecube is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Old 01-21-2016, 11:19 PM   #467
rubecube
Franchise Player
 
rubecube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi View Post
I would never trust my money to a money manager who believed in conspiracy theories and dismissed decades of scientific research. Stunning you would admit that Slava.
Maybe he caught some autisms from a bad batch of vaccines.
rubecube is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Old 01-21-2016, 11:21 PM   #468
stampsx2
First Line Centre
 
stampsx2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi View Post
I would never trust my money to a money manager who believed in conspiracy theories and dismissed decades of scientific research. Stunning you would admit that Slava.
I would. You've obviously never talked to Slava. I have and have gotten very helpful advise I wouldn't give back. If I hadn't started working with someone else before him he would have another customer.
stampsx2 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to stampsx2 For This Useful Post:
Old 01-21-2016, 11:23 PM   #469
stampsx2
First Line Centre
 
stampsx2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
Maybe he caught some autisms from a bad batch of vaccines.
Maybe there's a Victoria puck forums you could go post on instead of here.
stampsx2 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to stampsx2 For This Useful Post:
Old 01-21-2016, 11:23 PM   #470
rubecube
Franchise Player
 
rubecube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2 View Post
I would. You've obviously never talked to Slava. I have and have gotten very helpful advise I wouldn't give back. If I hadn't started working with someone else before him he would have another customer.
I don't actually discount the guy's financial acumen, but you lose a lot of credibility when you go against science.

Edit: I also believe Slava once ran for public office before. I don't know if he has any designs on doing it again, but that's a bad position to take on if he does.

Last edited by rubecube; 01-21-2016 at 11:29 PM.
rubecube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2016, 11:29 PM   #471
rubecube
Franchise Player
 
rubecube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2 View Post
Maybe there's a Victoria puck forums you could go post on instead of here.
Sick burn, bro.
rubecube is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Old 01-21-2016, 11:58 PM   #472
afc wimbledon
Franchise Player
 
afc wimbledon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: east van
Exp:
Default

I'm more stunned Slava thinks that at some time Canada will elect a political leader with a grand vision.

global warming denial seems tame by comparison.
afc wimbledon is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Old 01-22-2016, 12:00 AM   #473
rubecube
Franchise Player
 
rubecube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon View Post
I'm more stunned he thinks that at some time Canada will elect a political leader with a grand vision.
Why? I mean most of our recent PMs have had some sort of grand vision. Harper's doesn't immediately spring to mind but Martin, Chretien, Mulroney, Trudeau, Pearson, etc. all had their own versions of big things they wanted to accomplish.
rubecube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2016, 05:13 AM   #474
GaiJin
Crash and Bang Winger
 
GaiJin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
I don't actually discount the guy's financial acumen, but you lose a lot of credibility when you go against science I believe in.

Edit: I also believe Slava once ran for public office before. I don't know if he has any designs on doing it again, but that's a bad position to take on if he does.
fyp.
GaiJin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2016, 05:33 AM   #475
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
I don't actually discount the guy's financial acumen, but you lose a lot of credibility when you go against science.
This is the kind of flippant dismissal that has turned the global warming issue into just another black and white partisan litmus test. It shall not be discussed is no way to treat any serious issue. Especially a science issue. The whole point of science is to relentlessly challenge every theory. Here are some perfectly rational questions that are worth asking regarding global warming.

1) How accurate are the models we're using to assess global temperature changes and projections?

2) To what degree are man-made activities responsible for any warming, and what other factors could be at play?

3) What is the range of effects that increases and decreases to carbon emissions are likely to have on climate?

4) How practical are alternatives to carbon-based energy sources in supplying the energy requirements of the planet?

Unfortunately, dogmatic zealots use 'the science is settled' to stifle debate. You have the Gaia religionists, who idealize pre-industrial living and who crave certainty and piety just as surely as any fundamentalist Christian. And you have anti-capitalist activists, for whom a theory that justifies ratcheting down global industry and taxing trade is a godsend. These groups make up some of the most passionate advocates for reducing carbon emissions, and neither is known for being especially literate in science, or for being open to empiricism or nuance.

So I chuckle when the issue is framed as a science vs ignorance debate. Last time I checked there was a tremendous amount of overlap between the anti-vax crowd and global-warming activists.

The science is settled on very few scientific theories, especially not ones as complex and difficult to assess as global climate.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.

Last edited by CliffFletcher; 01-22-2016 at 05:38 AM.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Old 01-22-2016, 06:34 AM   #476
Tinordi
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Exp:
Default

Frankly CliffFletcher I'd you have to ask those four questions as a feign to foment uncertainty then you don't have a GD clue as to what you are talking about.

And for a guy who likes to wade in as the level headed arbiter of reason your false equivalence between anti vax and the legitimate science of climate change wears particularly ugly.
Tinordi is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tinordi For This Useful Post:
Old 01-22-2016, 07:02 AM   #477
Slava
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi View Post
I would never trust my money to a money manager who believed in conspiracy theories and dismissed decades of scientific research. Stunning you would admit that Slava.
Something tells me we wouldn't mesh well to begin with, regardless of this particular issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
Yikes.
I knew this was the reaction that I would get from some.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher View Post
This is the kind of flippant dismissal that has turned the global warming issue into just another black and white partisan litmus test. It shall not be discussed is no way to treat any serious issue. Especially a science issue. The whole point of science is to relentlessly challenge every theory. Here are some perfectly rational questions that are worth asking regarding global warming.

1) How accurate are the models we're using to assess global temperature changes and projections?

2) To what degree are man-made activities responsible for any warming, and what other factors could be at play?

3) What is the range of effects that increases and decreases to carbon emissions are likely to have on climate?

4) How practical are alternatives to carbon-based energy sources in supplying the energy requirements of the planet?

Unfortunately, dogmatic zealots use 'the science is settled' to stifle debate. You have the Gaia religionists, who idealize pre-industrial living and who crave certainty and piety just as surely as any fundamentalist Christian. And you have anti-capitalist activists, for whom a theory that justifies ratcheting down global industry and taxing trade is a godsend. These groups make up some of the most passionate advocates for reducing carbon emissions, and neither is known for being especially literate in science, or for being open to empiricism or nuance.

So I chuckle when the issue is framed as a science vs ignorance debate. Last time I checked there was a tremendous amount of overlap between the anti-vax crowd and global-warming activists.

The science is settled on very few scientific theories, especially not ones as complex and difficult to assess as global climate.
I think that I should've pointed out that its not that I don't believe the planet is warming. It might be. I just dispute the idea that its man causing it. Frankly there are so many factors that lead to it, we have zero idea whether its us causing the warming. I also find the "science denier" angle amusing. I have been hearing for decades now. The Kyoto protocol is about 19 years old, and before that we had the UN framework which was from 1992. Is there credible evidence that over those 25 years that we have experienced global warming? Is there any evidence that its been caused by man? Those were the two original premises of the UN framework.

I find the current carbon discussion troublesome for two main reasons (three if you count the fact that you can't have an adult discussion on it without being labelled as ignorant, or a pure knuckle dragging science denier!):

1. These issues are based on projections that go out 50 years. Frankly humans and our forecasting skill is tedious at best. We think we have things figured out, but in reality things tend to wind up very differently. So maybe the planet warms, maybe it doesn't. We are a society so bad at predicting things that we can bet on the outcome of hockey games (which a lot of us on here think we are experts) and the odds are against us...yet we can apparently predict the future temperatures for the planet five decades away? I'm sure that's completely accurate.

2. Is the warming man-made? We all know (thank you science!) that the earth has warmed and cooled before. We might have watched "An Inconvenient Truth" with Al Gore and saw the graph that looks like a hockey stick and fell for the "we've never seen this kind of temperature change before" kind of line. The thing is we might not have seen it directly, but its not the first time in the history of the planet. We know there was a "mini ice-age" in the middle of the last century or so. We also know that this was sandwiched between a couple of warmer periods. Were those warm periods because of increased carbon in the atmosphere? Seems unlikely. Most of that warming is attributed to things like solar activity, changing ocean currents and other things that man simply cannot control at this point. How much of the changes we perceive today are due to those factors?

So, long story short (and in the wrong thread), I just think that there are more questions than answers. There are theories that aren't even close to proven. If that makes me some kind of "science-denier" in your eyes, that's your issue. I just think that since we as a world really began having this discussion the global temperature has increased something minimal like 0.14-0.2 degrees? (The science seems in dispute for these things), but as far as I can see we've seen a 1.2 degree increase over the past 140 years. That doesn't mean that we are going to rise forever. Maybe this is a good place to remind everyone that in the 70's science was concerned about global cooling. There is a significant division here.
Slava is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
Old 01-22-2016, 07:46 AM   #478
J pold
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi View Post
I would never trust my money to a money manager who believed in conspiracy theories and dismissed decades of scientific research. Stunning you would admit that Slava.
Ridiculous. If anything I would want my manager to have a healthy dose of scepticism and question the prevailing theory even in the face of being ridiculed by his peers.
J pold is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to J pold For This Useful Post:
Old 01-22-2016, 08:00 AM   #479
PsYcNeT
Franchise Player
 
PsYcNeT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Marseilles Of The Prairies
Exp:
Default

Yes because skeptics are well regarded as being climate change deniers.

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2008/0...ental-skeptic/
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm View Post
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
PsYcNeT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2016, 08:02 AM   #480
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

This is rube et al's Stalingrad. They don't know much about markets or policy beyond ideological baffle-gab but the climate change issue is such a perfect wind up for them to lose all semblance of decor and launch their favourite little snarky one-liners.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:28 AM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy