Wanna-B-Fanboy

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...

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.”

I can't believe I am even making this Thread... But, it seems to have taken over the politics Thread so I figured we can hash this out here (though the way the conversation was heading about AGW, maybe it should have stayed in the Politics thread... So here we go, let's have at it! I believe there is overwhelming evidence in AGW and it is a vocal, self-serving minority of the scientific community that derail and muddy up the issue so we can not act in a constructive manner to curtail this global thread.

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.

As for singling me out, NO, I was not the one who was chastising and calling out people on these boards to stop being disrespectful. At least, I don't recall doing that. What I do recall saying was that Harper deserved to be scorned and I was fine with that, but what I didn't like was people deliberately inventing lies about Harper, and posting them here. That was wrong. So, you are wrong. Very disrespectful. He's the friggen Prime Minister (or about to become). I hated it when PM Harper was personally attacked and I hate it when it's JT. Respect the position. It defeats the argument. Now its entirely possible what this person is saying is true about Trudeau being "dumb". I dont know him. But thats a poor way to make a point. I agree. Just like the nuts and loons attacked Harper with mostly made up gibberish and out-right lies, this video is disgraceful in the same way. I am all for criticism, but let it be fact-based. Attacking Trudeau before he's even sworn in is just sour grapes, I am afraid. So, to make this simple: TUP said "He's the friggen Prime Minister (or about to become). I hated it when PM Harper was personally attacked and I hate it when it's JT. Respect the position" You Said "I agree" Yet later on, you refer to JT as "Shiny Pony", "sunny family" that, "entitled brat" this. I made the hypocrite comment based on this. Ironically, you were defending JT... If I have misinterpreted the above, my apologies. If you want to continue this, feel free to PM me so we can spare the good people in the forums. That is all. I leave it at that.

True, hopefully he can help Bibi with rolling back the illegal settlements in the west bank and Gaza too.

First off, I am not a JT fanboi. He just started as pm, he doesn't have much of a track record- so yeah, he gets the benefit of doubt. I Not defending him or anything, but the nanny **** is fine with me ( optics look bad, but I am cool with it, and would be if it was Harper). I am not defending JT, it looks bad and he needs to deal with it, I just think it's a stupid trivial thing with no real effect on the governance of our country and should be treated as such. I will just focus on what the government passes and does or don't do and make my judgement on that, you know the stuff that matters. Harper, I wasn't a fan. I was rarely, if ever, disrespectful about him. Hated most the conservative polices, hated the culture they brought in... mostly, I pretty much disagreed with most of the conservative culture, policy, governance, lack of evidence based decision making, proroguing for selfish reasons and so on... but I have had almost a decade of them being in power, three mandates, and a litany of shitty behavior to base my opinion on. As for singling you out, you are the one who was chastising and calling out people on these boards to stop being disrespectful of the PM and the post. I didn't see anyone else doing it (calling people out for being disrespectful of The PM), if there was I am sorry for singling you out. But then all your post about JT are doing exactly what you were shitting on people for doing... so hypocrite works here.

Though... It's a good sign when everyone is bitching and moaning over the tax payer nannies- yet just last week the details of the massive influx of Syrian was released and there are very few detractors on that front. As long as he and his party get the meaningful stuff right, we're going to be all right.

I think this issue has proven more than that, namely that Trudeau is a giant hypocrite. Which should be a surprise to no one.I think that you are the last person on these board to be calling anyone out for being a hypocrite. .. due to you calling everyone out for disrespecting harper and making a huge stink about respecting the PM and his office, yet all I see in your post is shiny-pony this sunny family that, entitled brat this. Your **** is old, get new material and try to contribute in a respectful and meaningful way. You have good, legit arguments- but your delivery is dreadful- like a poorman's brian lily.

We will see. I personally am loving it, watching all of the cry-babies now being forced into defensive mode. By that logic... does this make you and TUP the cry-babies now? Serious question, because that seems to be where your logic is taking us- other shoe and all. Edit: To be clear, I am not calling you two cry babies- you have valid concerns that you bring up- just your logic dictates that you might have inadvertently labeled yourself as such.

Wow... That is kind of awesome.

Good god... I can't stand that website... I'm sorry, I really did try to give it a shot- but man I just want to gouge out my own cussing eyes. Went to the page where the story is... read the story (which you have pasted in entirety), clicked on the "Liberals view" link got taken to a cussy piece about a donate button that is a header on the Liberal Party of Canada website and is not independent to any specific pages... it's a cussing template... same thing that happened when Conservatives were accused of using terror to raise funds http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/donate-button-deleted-on-harper-and-trudeau-anti-terrorism-message-1.2895753 which was stupid to accuse them of that... because it was a template for the site... yet I don't recall his raging indignation about that... I suspect he came to the Cons defence instead. Then I click on the "Impeach Obama" link and for cuss sakes... Impeach Obama because he is not bombing specific infrastructure? what an IDIOT! Ezra Know full well! FULL WELL, that it is because they are interested in keeping the infrastructure intact (the quote even says that!) that they are not bombing it... sure sure- it is asinine for the administration to lead with environmental considerations and then infrastructure of interest... but to Impeach him, cuss that... SOOOOO much impotent rage and indignation on that site... The site is cussing insulting to anyone with an iota of intelligence. /rant Anyway... back to original topic: I haven't seen anything like that anywhere else, but I will keep my eyes open. It would be interesting to see a more even-handed take on the reasons, if this is true.

I think the word you are looking for is relevance... as in "I wish the Bombers were relevant in November".

well the greatest car chase I've seen was in The French Connection.... that's an old movie. best fight...... first (I think) Jason Bourne movie, fight in the glass and steel ultar modern apartment with the German assassin. my word that was well done. I think Jason did him in with the phone cord. There's a bar fight in "Treasure of the sierra madre" that was really good. That's fairly old. Watch The Raid 2... all other fight scenes are interpretive dance compared to those fight scenes... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fps6xgInJ4

So everyone is more or less happy with this decision? Hard not to like this... it kind of appeases everyone... Women,Children and Families- no lone males of fighting age: Addresses security Concerns Screened and health concerns addressed BEFORE they come over. Taking in 10,000+ before years end and 15+K more before two more months end... Pragmatic, measured, flexible, and done in a timely manner- colour me impressed (which is the same colour as Aqua-velva). That's Aqua Velva lad. Heh, thanks for the correction- though it strikes me as strange that a name that is so manly is so close to the name for womanly parts... just change that "e" to an "a" and you have whole different... well you get my drift.

So everyone is more or less happy with this decision? Hard not to like this... it kind of appeases everyone... Women,Children and Families- no lone males of fighting age: Addresses security Concerns Screened and health concerns addressed BEFORE they come over. Taking in 10,000+ before years end and 15+K more before two more months end... Pragmatic, measured, flexible, and done in a timely manner- colour me impressed (which is the same colour as Aqua-velva).

Not so, Me an Nate are just reminiscing.

The one cringe worthy thing during his tenure here that I recall (all the rest seems to be repressed), is the mirror speech... that made me throw up in my mouth a bit when I heard about that. Still makes me gag when I think about it...

Well cuss, looks like I am the Nick Griffin of gastronomes.

The Bomber brain trust were whining about the effect of all the changes their O-line went through and how it contributed to their downfall, but Calgary's situation was worse and they STILL look and perform better than the Bomber O-line did all year. And we had a vaunted O-line coach, too. Yup, tells me that it might be a scheme thing.

Once again, attack the person, but don't even address the message. What else is new around here. Here's Rex Murphy on the Syrian situation. I expect Rex to get the same treatment. http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/rex-murphy-trudeau-s-refugee-promise-1.3327352 Yes, let's get Noam's take on everything. Can't wait, though I already pretty much know what he's going to say. Actually, I didn't even get a message from Bridget's little opportunistic rant... I watched a few times, and i fail to see the point she was making in her response to that woman's question... It's like she has this Right-wing anti-Muslim **** Political correctness shtick. Her rant had lots of numbers, lots of vile imagery, lots of bullishness, but no real point other than to excuse non political correctness, while she was still being politically correct- which is odd in itself... I'm sorry, but she seems to me a poorman's version of Anne Coulter sans the sassiness. As for Rex- He makes some very good points. His reasoning was sound and his tone was measured. Was a good example on how to have a polite discourse on a visceral subject and I applaud him- may not agree totally with what he is saying, but I take his points and give them a good pause for thought-> he's got some very good points, with excellent rationale. As for Noam, I am curious as to what you believe his take on the matter is- please share.

Oh yeah that's awesome! This is from the same lady who gave us: Also, she didn't really answer the girls's question in the video. I think I will go back to checking out Noam's view on this is.

You Socialist BASTERD!!! JK

Actually, I've been surprised at how many women I've talked to that are not happy about Trudeau's policy either. They don't want hand-outs, they want to be recognized as being just as good as men. Quotas in a lot of ways are slaps in the face to people as it tells them "you are only getting this job because of what you are, not who you are". But what's done is done. What happens in the next election and there are more women than men elected? Will a lot of extremely talented women be excluded from cabinet because of this policy? It really can be a double-edged sword. I just love the irony of the quote coupled with your post... Thank you for that- it made my day

FFA