Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???

[Altair]

Im going to laugh when the mods decide this thread goes the way of the climate thread.

 

[ArmyRick]

So what seems like 6 pages of this, and it still comes down to your OPINION

I aint the one who shoves climate dooms day into everyone's face here. Say something to them, why don't ya? Start with @suffolkowner

Why are you so confrontational? There is no reason to be.

And no one else is?

The past 6 pages are the biggest argument against reopening the climate thread.

And yet here we are. I didn't start the climate change discussion here. Others did.

Sooooo, its ok for some to express their opinions on climate change but when challenged, ohh shut the fuck up, Rick? Nope.

Regardless of the magnitude of threat or benefit increased CO2 concentrations pose, a rational policy for Canada to adopt is to promote electrification and security globally. Those aims are achieved by exporting more LNG (primarily to substitute for coal in generation and for heating fuel to conserve electricity for other purposes) and oil (primarily to politically stabilize energy-poor countries and reduce dependency on supplies that pass through hot spots).

Seeking to reduce worldwide emissions by a fraction two or three places to the right of a decimal point while impoverishing ourselves does very little to help directly and a lot to harm indirectly (by depriving the world of aforementioned resources).

Thank you, this is a valid point.

 

[Altair]

And yet here we are. I didn't start the climate change discussion here. Others did.

Sooooo, its ok for some to express their opinions on climate change but when challenged, ohh shut the fuck up, Rick? Nope.

Did I mention you Rick? If so, show me where I mentioned you. If not, pound sand please.

 

[PrairieFella]

And no one else is?

Yep - youre the only one using ad hominems. Suffolk is typing numbers.

I wash my hands of this talk, theres obviously no getting through lol.

 

[ArmyRick]

Yep - youre the only one using ad hominems. Suffolk is typing numbers.

I wash my hands of this talk, theres obviously no getting through lol.

Where did I attack Suffolkowner character or personal traits? I attacked his point of view because I disagreed with it. He threw up numbers. So did I.

Why don't you be honest and say you have a biased view on this topic?

 

[ArmyRick]

For some here

 

[Halifax Tar]

Just to plant my own flag, I really don't care about climate change. Its hard to give the movement any credibility when the big emitters and rich and powerful leaders don't follow their own preaching's. Even if its real, the people/countries/companies who need to change wont, so meah. Fuck it.

If its a big deal for you have'at'er.

Now where can I find a V10 for a good price...

 

[suffolkowner]

I aint the one who shoves climate dooms day into everyone's face here. Say something to them, why don't ya? Start with @suffolkowner

its just evidence.
Earlier i posted evidence on the impact of the sun from NASA came with a handy nice little graph. Response was trolling (not from you)
Before that why the opinions of Lindzen and Curry should be treated with caution by people unfamiliar with them based on their poor scientific methods and predictions
If the evidence points to doom, then it is what it is. Isn't it?

 

[PrairieFella]

For some here

@ me next time lmao.

Green zealots, I ask again, we need the so what

Ad hominem. You assume an extreme character without addressing a point.

(some are getting very wealthy on alarming people like you)

What do you mean people like him

Either stay in the conversation or drop it.

False dilemma.

If your going to bring up all your stats on how horrible we are to the planet,

Reductio ad absurdum. He's not saying we're horrible to the planet. He's talking about oceanic carbon levels.

then have a point to make and quit playing these games.

Soft ad hominem. Hes making a point with data.

We have suffolkowner banging on about the horrible humans destroying the planet yet he is very short of REALISTIC solutions for all forms of energy production and distribution.

Bit of a Nirvana fallacy.

 

[ArmyRick]

@ me next time lmao.


Ad hominem. You assume an extreme character without addressing a point.

What do you mean people like him

False dilemma.

Reductio ad absurdum

Soft ad hominem.

Bit of a Nirvana fallacy.

You really didn't watch the video, and you haven't made a point. Green zealots being thrown out there is not really an ad hominem. Either way, your on the frequency, change now, OUT

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I aint the one who shoves climate dooms day into everyone's face here. Say something to them, why don't ya? Start with @suffolkowner

And no one else is?

And yet here we are. I didn't start the climate change discussion here. Others did.

Sooooo, its ok for some to express their opinions on climate change but when challenged, ohh shut the fuck up, Rick? Nope.


Thank you, this is a valid point.

It is not THAT you express your opinion. It is HOW you express it - with a the dose of vitriol that seems to festoon most of the posts.

I'm not sure why I bother with what is clearly a Sisyphean task

 

[RangerRay]

Ever tried Bear or Shark ?

I love a good steak too... Blue rare for this guy.

I’ve always found bear to be m’eh. Depends what it’s been eating. Even those spending their summers eating some farmers corn crop I find mediocre at best.

I’m afraid I’m about as far as you can get from sharks.

For hunting in general, you either need to know someone with land, or drive 2 hours to Crown land and join 300 others per square km roaring around trying to blast anything that moves.

 

[HavokFour]

Zima at Anzo, Zima and Bakor.

Mirab, with sails unfurled.



Back on topic, I'd love to see more of this getting down to the root. A small step but a step nonetheless.

B.C. court finds retailer liable for exploiting up to 880 migrant workers

A judge found Mac's Convenience Stores and B.C. recruiters used 'outright lies' to charge 880 migrants up to $8K for jobs that never existed

www.biv.com

The workers were among roughly 880 migrants who paid up to $8,000 to secure employment in Canada. Only about 125 of those workers ever made it to the country, said Susanna Quail, a lawyer for plaintiffs.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Just to plant my own flag, I really don't care about climate change. Its hard to give the movement any credibility when the big emitters and rich and powerful leaders don't follow their own preaching's.

The Chuch of Climate Change was a useful vehicle for the Trudeau Liberals. It's run it's course and the Carney Liberals need a new faith now.

 

[suffolkowner]

The Chuch of Climate Change was a useful vehicle for the Trudeau Liberals. It's run it's course and the Carney Liberals need a new faith now.

its the church of the anti Trump and they will be able to ride it as long as Trump continues. Maybe an election in spring/late summer 2028

 

[Halifax Tar]

I’ve always found bear to be m’eh. Depends what it’s been eating. Even those spending their summers eating some farmers corn crop I find mediocre at best.

Very true. No dumps around where I hunt. The BBs mostly subsist on foraging and hunting themselves in my area. I prefer my bear in Sausage or ground TBH. But my wife makes a bacon wrapped, Pepsi soaked roast that will make you punch a baby its so good.

I’m afraid I’m about as far as you can get from sharks.

Check out your local fish monger. If you can get a shark steak I highly HIGHLY recommend it.

For hunting in general, you either need to know someone with land, or drive 2 hours to Crown land and join 300 others per square km roaring around trying to blast anything that moves.

I feel you.

The Chuch of Climate Change was a useful vehicle for the Trudeau Liberals. It's run it's course and the Carney Liberals need a new faith now.

I just don't care. I am trying focusing on what in front of my face...

 

[Lumber]

Apologies to everyone for triggering ArmyRick lol.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The Chuch of Climate Change was a useful vehicle for the Trudeau Liberals. It's run it's course and the Carney Liberals need a new faith now.

And best of all, the Fanatic-in-Chief is gone...

Braid: Farewell to Steven Guilbeault, a founding father of Alberta separatism​

Guilbeault and former prime minister Justin Trudeau bear heavy responsibility for a Canadian crisis

Braid: Farewell to Steven Guilbeault, a founding father of Alberta separatism

No federal figure besides Trudeau did more than Steven Guilbeault to foster Alberta separatism

calgaryherald.com

 

[YZT580]

its just evidence.
Earlier i posted evidence on the impact of the sun from NASA came with a handy nice little graph. Response was trolling (not from you)
Before that why the opinions of Lindzen and Curry should be treated with caution by people unfamiliar with them based on their poor scientific methods and predictions
If the evidence points to doom, then it is what it is. Isn't it?

speaking of evidence here is one. Consider for a moment the vast quantities of coal in the ground. All of it is the result of vast quantities of plant materiel being cataclysmically buried, probably the result of a flood in the area where the coal was discovered. That is the original example of carbon sequestering. And no ICES to produce it either. Another issue to feed the mill is scientists tell us that we have arrived at a grand solar minimum and it will be around for a few years (like until 2050 or thereabouts) Each time we have reached this point we have entered a period of global cooling or a little ice age. Some have suggested that the snow and colder temperatures that we experience after Christmas are just a foretaste of things to come. Nobody really knows which is the phrase you could hang on this entire issue.

More facts: since 1880 climate warming is .8 degrees Celsius. Of that point eight half came before they say that carbon content started increasing so assuming that carbon is a forcing agent it is only responsible for .4 of a degree in 125 years which is hardly significant. I got very curious as to the origin of consensus figures about warming so I looked it up. It came as a result of examining almost 12,000 papers. Only 64 of the nearly 12,000 papers actually claimed that most of the warming is caused by human activity. In a follow-up analysis of the same papers, other researchers found that only 41 of those 64 papers endorsed the position that most of global warming was man-made. Taking into consideration that ⅔ of the papers expressed no view, that amounts to less than 1% of the papers that expressed a view. How did the authors get their 97%? They amalgamated all views that human-generated greenhouse gases are causing some warming.

All of us would agree that humans are causing some warming. Its a no-brainer. All one has to do is look at the heat output of any city. That should be your consensus statement: WE ARE AGREED THAT WE ARE CONTRIBUTING TO AN INCREASE IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURES. Which statement is a long, long way from having 97% of scientists say that we are the principal cause of warming. We also should be signing on with the doctors and agree that as much as possible we will not undertake any activity that will cause harm and we are certainly doing that right now. Two examples: the eagle and other avian populations as a result of windmills. The damage to fishing and whales as a result of off-shore expansion. Would you agree?

 

[suffolkowner]

speaking of evidence here is one. Consider for a moment the vast quantities of coal in the ground. All of it is the result of vast quantities of plant materiel being cataclysmically buried, probably the result of a flood in the area where the coal was discovered. That is the original example of carbon sequestering. And no ICES to produce it either. Another issue to feed the mill is scientists tell us that we have arrived at a grand solar minimum and it will be around for a few years (like until 2050 or thereabouts) Each time we have reached this point we have entered a period of global cooling or a little ice age. Some have suggested that the snow and colder temperatures that we experience after Christmas are just a foretaste of things to come. Nobody really knows which is the phrase you could hang on this entire issue.

More facts: since 1880 climate warming is .8 degrees Celsius. Of that point eight half came before they say that carbon content started increasing so assuming that carbon is a forcing agent it is only responsible for .4 of a degree in 125 years which is hardly significant. I got very curious as to the origin of consensus figures about warming so I looked it up. It came as a result of examining almost 12,000 papers. Only 64 of the nearly 12,000 papers actually claimed that most of the warming is caused by human activity. In a follow-up analysis of the same papers, other researchers found that only 41 of those 64 papers endorsed the position that most of global warming was man-made. Taking into consideration that ⅔ of the papers expressed no view, that amounts to less than 1% of the papers that expressed a view. How did the authors get their 97%? They amalgamated all views that human-generated greenhouse gases are causing some warming.

All of us would agree that humans are causing some warming. Its a no-brainer. All one has to do is look at the heat output of any city. That should be your consensus statement: WE ARE AGREED THAT WE ARE CONTRIBUTING TO AN INCREASE IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURES. Which statement is a long, long way from having 97% of scientists say that we are the principal cause of warming. We also should be signing on with the doctors and agree that as much as possible we will not undertake any activity that will cause harm and we are certainly doing that right now. Two examples: the eagle and other avian populations as a result of windmills. The damage to fishing and whales as a result of off-shore expansion. Would you agree?

im not going to address this as even the other thread that @Altair directed us to has been locked