pigseye

It is also a criminal code offence to provoke fear in the AG, the PMO needs to be investigated on both counts.

You asked so I obliged, too close to home for you? You are one of the few level headed posters on this topic so let's be swayed by the others.

No double standard here, just as long as their guy wins

The US has been interfering in our elections for years, especially the last one, but you won't be able to proven collusion there either. So every election can be termed stolen or whatever term you prefer if you want to get technical about it. We know our PM broke the law and interfered in the justice system, doesn't matter how you got elected, that's a crime and he needs to be punished.

At least they had an investigation down there, we can't even get that up here. Which is worse?

I wish the weather was that nice in Winnipeg.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/435556-mueller-delivers-a-win-for-trump-five-takeaways The Fake news is making the case for Trump in 2020 all on their own.

The unsustainable expansion of smartphone emissions A recent analysis by Belkhir and Elmeligi (2018) determined that the greenhouse gas emissions from the Information and Communication Industry (ICT) – smartphones and mobile devices, prominently – will grow from 1% of total global emissions in 2007 to 14% by 2040. That’s more than half of today’s relative contribution from the globe’s entire transportation sector. In 2010, smartphone use added 17 megatons of CO2 equivalent (17 MT-CO2-e) to annual global emissions. By next year (2020), smartphone emissions are expected to reach 125 MT-CO2-e/year – a 730% explosion in just 10 years. Last year (2018), there were 2.5 billion smartphone users. Belkhir and Elmeligi suggest that if there aren’t serious efforts to reduce or eliminate smartphone use in the near future, the number of smartphone units across the globe may reach 8.7 billion by 2040. This is unsustainable, dramatically undermining global efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965261733233X Now this really sucks.

Laine - Fefe - Elhers Perrault - Little - Wheeler Connor - Hayes - Roslovic Tanev - Lowery - Cop Even a dud coach like Maurice could match and roll those lines.

Disapproval rating by province, https://www.narcity.com/news/justin-trudeaus-current-approval-ratings-are-in-and-heres-which-province-hates-him-the-most Surprisingly he has a 60% disapproval rating in Quebec, only SK & Alba are worse.

If the results are correct who cares?

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018EA000443 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969718331978 One study, well here's two new ones that say otherwise, even the IPCC acknowledged the pause.

But if the paper passes peer review and is published is all that matters.

Now this has absolutely huge implications if what they are theorizing is correct, their paper is in the peer review stage. Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

This is actually true for land surface temperatures, nobody disputes that. The oceans continued to warm which kept global temperatures creeping up. Some truth to this statement too, Central England Temperature Record for the 40 years 1694-1733, long before SUVs, during which the temperature in most of England rose at a rate equivalent to 4.33 C°/century, compared with just 1.7 C°/century equivalent in the 40 years 1979-2018. Therefore, the current rate of warming is not unprecedented. See above. You guy already answered this one. Not hard evidence by any stretch but enough that further research is warranted imo.

Hmmm, awfully quiet in here, Bruins are on a losing streak and I see that continuing tonight.

https://www.popsci.com/ARkStorm-megastorm-california

Wow, who pinches late in a tie game like that, #57 take a bow.

That's a pretty important statement considering it's contrary to AGW theory and what we hear in the mainstream media. Until the data supports the theory, it's still just a theory. I enjoyed your post btw.

Despite getting side tracked, you inadvertently got to the meat of the issue, it's about politics, Liberals want to save the planet and Conservatives want to burn it down in the name of profits. Until a person can get past their biases, nothing will change.

That studies been around awhile, here it is https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317 It's very complex but Watts did a good job explaining it, it compared the opinions of different industries, not just those working in oil and gas https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/03/science-or-science-fiction-97-climate-consensus-crumbles-in-new-survey/ The graph at the end shows the agreement by industry and overall only 36% agreed with the Kyoto Protocol.

These results indicate that currently we cannot attribute changes in North Atlantic hurricane intensity to human related forcings. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018GL081725 New study just released this month, won't get any publicity however.

It just keeps on getting better for the Liberals, I don't think an op-ed is going to save them The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development's working group on bribery said in a statement Monday that it is "concerned" by accusations that Trudeau and staff in his office tried to get former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to let the Quebec engineering giant negotiate a remediation agreement rather than pursue the firm on criminal charges of bribery and fraud. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/oecd-trudeau-snc-lavalin-1.5051446?post_id=noID

You probably should have read the actual study http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaau7042 It's an anomaly that has occurred before, the last time was the 1980's https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL063306 I know you mean well.

Not even the fake news can bring him back from this.