kelownabomberfan

Oh don't get me wrong, I am far from a doom and gloomer, I'm of the opinion that it's a lot of fretting over things we shouldn't worry about. We're better off doing what humans do best and adapting to the change rather than trying to halt said change. Fossil fuels will naturally be replaced at some point anyway, I'd rather let economics dictate when to make the change as opposed to forcing it at huge cost. I also don't agree with schemes like cap and trade and carbon taxes, I don't believe they actually address the issue. That being said, the science is pretty sound and the opposing science doesn't hold up to scrutiny. That's how science works, it's not about opinions it's about proving and disproving. You sound a lot like two guys I really admire, Bjorn Lomborg and Matthew Ridley. Both are self-described "luke-warmers", in that they agree with the hypothesis to some extent that man-generated CO2 may be having an effect on climate, but they say the costs and the actual cures themselves are far worse than actual man-made climate change. Matt Ridley actually describes a lot of the suggested "cures" for man-made climate change as wrapping a tourniquet around your neck to stop a nosebleed. I think a lot of people would agree with this, but are shouted down, Lomborg has a serious problem with wasting billions on solving "man-made climate change" in Africa while for a few million, all Africans could receive mosquito nets, and therefore not die of malaria long before they ever die of climate change. Lomborg has been attacked mercilessly by the AGW warm-mongers, and I'm sure the resident muck-rakers could in five minutes find several sites pointing out how Lomborg's aunt once spoke at a conference and the Koch brothers took a dump in the hotel during the conference so therefore his opinion is worthless, but that's beside the point. IF this is an issue, how big an issue is it? Is it the apocalyptic ****-storm that those being paid a lot of money to "study" this problem say it is? I agree with you, the answer is probably "no".

Solid burn.

Not really a solid burn. Just more deflection.. But what else is new.

So only scientists should have an opinion? There is contradictory "science". Seems even scientists dont know. the problem is, there is also a lot of bullshit parading around as science that people keep bringing up. Here are some things that we can accept as true though... The Eath has warmed and cooled on it's own for a variety of reasons in the past and will continue to do so in the future The greenhouse effect is real, this is not up for debate CO2 is a greehouse gas, this is not up for debate Our species has emitted a metric **** ton of CO2 in the last 200 years, this is a fact and not up for debate. So you put all those things together and yeah there is a whole lot of overwhelming evidence pointing towards our actions as a species impacting climate.How much? Well that's where the debate comes in, and what's to be done about it? That's the biggest debate that should be happening. The science is pretty straightforward and trying to hand wave it away with arguments like "Well the Earth warms and cools naturally" aren't scientific they're little better than being a flat earther or creationist. Just flies in the face of real science. and yet there have been periods of time where CO2 levels were much higher than they are today, and yet somehow the world didn't experience the doomsday scenarios as forecasted by groups who directly benefit from people believing these doomsday scenarios, as their livelihoods and funding are tied to people continuing to buy the doomsday scenarios. And that, as they say, is a conflict of interest.

So only scientists should have an opinion? There is contradictory "science". Seems even scientists dont know. the problem is, there is also a lot of bullshit parading around as science that people keep bringing up. Here are some things that we can accept as true though... The Eath has warmed and cooled on it's own for a variety of reasons in the past and will continue to do so in the future The greenhouse effect is real, this is not up for debate CO2 is a greehouse gas, this is not up for debate Our species has emitted a metric **** ton of CO2 in the last 200 years, this is a fact and not up for debate. So you put all those things together and yeah there is a whole lot of overwhelming evidence pointing towards our actions as a species impacting climate.How much? Well that's where the debate comes in, and what's to be done about it? That's the biggest debate that should be happening. The science is pretty straightforward and trying to hand wave it away with arguments like "Well the Earth warms and cools naturally" aren't scientific they're little better than being a flat earther or creationist. Just flies in the face of real science. I ♥ you. Aaaaand cue KBF's triple "D" "Deny, Deflect, Denigrate" I'm the one who "denigrates"? Who is the one posting nonsense about "Front Groups" and only looking at one side of the whole debate? Who is the one denigrating "Friends of Science" but turning a complete blind eye to the Tides Foundation? Who funds the Green Party in Canada? The Sierra Club? Hint - it's not Canadians.

Sorry, but this is unadulterated BS. And what about all of the funds that AGW lobby groups get from US sources with vested interest in "Green Renewables"? Is that not also about "muddying the waters" and causing all kinds of angst about AGW purely for profit? What is hilarious is that some of the biggest investors in "Green" technology are oil companies. I'm sorry but I'm not buying the complete BS that all of these "front groups" as they are called are lobbying on behalf of "Big Oil". Big Oil doesn't need to lobby anybody, or muddy any waters whatsoever. From what I've seen, the biggest liars and therefore biggest beneficiaries of the entire AGW hoax are organizations like Greenpeace and "Friends of the Earth". Since the AGW scam went mainstream in 2007, they've taken in literally billions of dollars and grown their organizations exponentially. Also - NASA now receives $4 billion a year to "study" this scam. Of course they are going to promote this unproven hypothesis and scare everyone, their funding depends on it! Why, if these sources you keep quoting are so devoted to the truth, are they not reporting on these "front groups" on the supposed "Green" side? No bigger fraud that I've seen in this whole mess was the completely concocted story about how cancer rates were so high in oil sands communities. It was all a load of cock and bull. But as it was revealed (by Ezra of course as no one else would do it) US environmentalists were funding the entire sham. And yet, no one cared. That's why I can't trust this crap that you are posting. There is big money at stake on both sides, but you don't want to see both sides.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-terror-attacks-france-shuts-down-three-mosques-in-security-crackdown-a6757596.html Trump is completely nuts, and his policies, if you can call them that, are crazy, but I do agree that there should be more co-operation with the Muslim community, and that something has to be done to try and work with them to stop these attacks. Look what is going on in France right now. They are finding military grade weaponry in mosques. Why weren't they searching these places sooner? And why are mosques in France being used as store-houses for weapons? Why were no Muslims reporting these weapons to authorities?

o.k...who is the best choice and why? Someone who hasn't failed here twice already for obvious reasons. Lapo has been stuck on TSN for the last few years, that says something to me about how in demand the guy is. Yeah he's the most experienced candidate out there... but that isn't exactly much to hang your hat on. I don't know if I call his head coaching stint a "failure", as he did get us to the Grey Cup in 2011. In 2012 he was Mack's fall guy. I don't think that Lapo should have been fired in 2012. That was a terrible move, and set us up with Droopy Dog for a year and half of misery.

Impossible to say. It's more likely they had vision of weapons today and if they did would never want the citizenry to possesses them. The interpretation of the amendment that it was for the citizenry to act as a militia in the absence of a strong central army is fair. At the time the Americans expected that the British would re-organize and try to take back the 13 colonies at some point, and so they wanted to make sure every American had a gun and could be mobilized should the British sweep over the border from Canada and start another armed conflict. Turns out that they were right, as in 1812 war broke out again. And the British walked into Washington and burned down the president's mansion, but not before eating the dinner that President Madison had left behind when he and his staff fled the city. The British tried to burn down Washington, but it was saved by a hurricane that put out all of the fires. Weird eh?

Yeah, and I get reminded of how good he was in 2010 every time I see that insurance ad and they show that run he did for a TD against Hamilton in his first ever game in Blue. He was at the top of his game in 2010 all right, especially considering his receivers that year were Terence Edwards and Jaymael Smith. Don't forget Adarius Bowman, Terrence Jeffers Harris, and Brock Ralph How much did Bowman even play in 2010? He couldn't catch a cold when he played for the Bombers. But yeah, he had Brock Ralph to throw to, I forgot about that. Also, Aaron Hargreaves.

Yeah, and I get reminded of how good he was in 2010 every time I see that insurance ad and they show that run he did for a TD against Hamilton in his first ever game in Blue. He was at the top of his game in 2010 all right, especially considering his receivers that year were Terence Edwards and Jaymael Smith.

You sound so very optimistic. Maybe 1-8 or 0-9. Look BC and Edm is not really a strong team right now... will they be before the start of the 2016 season? Who knows. That really depends on the OC and DC that they're going to get hired... for sure not much left there. I say Cgy will still remain on the top in terms of their O, their D will be a question mark since they will have a rookie DC in Claybrooks. Expectation on the Riders will probably higher because of the addition of Jones. But how he will manage to put back their Cdn depth remains to be seen. I was kind of joking, which I do a lot. But also making a point - it appears that we have the interim coach built in already should we have another crappy season and Osh needs to go. Also - Edmonton just won some trophy a few weeks ago, trying to remember what it was...

so by game 9 of next year, when we are 2-7, Osh is gone and Lapo takes over as head coach?

Interesting argument. I'd like to read more. What's the source on this? The World's Pals @: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3 This is a far more informative link to the "Friends of Science" activities, compiled by the "Center for Media and Democracy". http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science I'd believe this so-called "Center for Media and Democracy" if they exposed Front groups, as they call them, on both sides of the debate. This just looks like a hack job on any organization that dares challenge the warm-monger apocalyptic view. A friend of mine has a double doctorate in mathematics and is a member of "Friends of Science", and believe me, he is getting nothing from "Big Oil". He just wants to inject some truth into the discussion, which a lot of people don't want to hear, mostly because they've been so brain-washed that they don't want to have to think about this anymore. He also got a kick out of those six guys that want to put the Friends of Science in jail, as he says it is nothing new, warmists are always trying to shut them up as they fear the giant gravy train of government cash is going to come to an end, and they'll have to find a new environmental issue to blow way out of proportion. It is fun to watch my friend destroy elitist liberals at parties though, who are still parroting fear-mongering lines from Al Gore's Inconvenient Lie movie from 2007. It's 2015 and not one of Al's scary predictions from that Oscar winning "documentary" have come true. Of course they didn't come true, because they were total BS.

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.