Trudope was too late with his carbon tax.........

[Rod]

9 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

You sure do hate those elitists.

”I ain’t got no nobel, why’d Dey git

one “

 

It’s so easy to reduce you to talking points  

[Snake]

Id like a link republicans are the party of anti vaccines....

[Rod]

59 minutes ago, Snake said:

Id like a link republicans are the party of anti vaccines....

The alt left is very anti science 

vaccines 

GMO’s

glyphosate 

deny the climate has always changed 

etc

[ArcticCrusher]

2 minutes ago, DUMPY said:

The alt left is very anti science 

vaccines 

GMO’s

glyphosate 

deny the climate has always changed 

etc

Think they can stop it from changing with a carbon tax and then call everyone else a climate change denier.

[revkevsdi]

1 hour ago, Snake said:

Id like a link republicans are the party of anti vaccines....

 

 

19 minutes ago, DUMPY said:

The alt left is very anti science 

vaccines 

GMO’s

glyphosate 

deny the climate has always changed 

etc

https://www.vox.com/2015/9/16/9342825/donald-trump-vaccines-autism

When your President is so stupid he makes Ben Carson look sane. 

[revkevsdi]

16 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Think they can stop it from changing with a carbon tax and then call everyone else a climate change denier.

Do you agree agree that human activity is largely responsible for climate change?

 

[ArcticCrusher]

1 minute ago, revkevsdi said:

Do you agree agree that human activity is largely responsible for climate change?

 

No, it's a factor, but overpopulation will be a bigger one.  What's the real plan?

[Snake]

3 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

Do you agree agree that human activity is largely responsible for climate change?

 

No.

 

[irv]

3 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

Do you agree agree that human activity is largely responsible for climate change?

 

What about all the climate change we had before man came? Was that the dinosaur farts that melted all the ice back then? 

Right from Nasa. Notice how they say "in just the last 650,000 years. A small number considering the earth is billions of years old. 

"The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives"

[revkevsdi]

37 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Think they can stop it from changing with a carbon tax and then call everyone else a climate change denier.

 

16 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

No, it's a factor, but overpopulation will be a bigger one.  What's the real plan?

 

15 minutes ago, Snake said:

No.

 

 

11 minutes ago, irv said:

What about all the climate change we had before man came? Was that the dinosaur farts that melted all the ice back then? 

Right from Nasa. Notice how they say "in just the last 650,000 years. A small number considering the earth is billions of years old. 

"The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives"

No wonder I refer to you link heads as denying man made climate change. 

[revkevsdi]

On 4/29/2019 at 8:16 AM, Usedtoskidoo said:

Dude you know that liberal MP's were at that meeting as well right?

WTF?

Still waiting for the link to the liberals at that meeting with Andrew Scheer the Koch Brothers oil reps.

 

[1trailmaker]

Finally the deniers have realized the facts they have denied for decades is indeed true.  So now its you can`t stop it   

Moving at a snails pace  

 

Can you guys point out all these increased costs that have affected you?

 

for you Ontario fellows can you point out the massive savings you have gotten since June? 

[1trailmaker]

Where is the protesting DOUG's PST on gasoline prices, I remember this being a huge election issue before.  

Oh thats right it no longer matters .............................  point finger at Trudeau 

  

 

Do you ONEWAYS ever change  

[irv]

11 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

No wonder I refer to you link heads as denying man made climate change. 

Doesn't read links, brushes off memes, has no thoughts of his own yet believes people like Al Gore and AOC? 

[Tinker]

1 hour ago, revkevsdi said:

Do you agree agree that human activity is largely responsible for climate change?

 

Of course not but Climate Change and Global Warming is absofnlutely responsible for the earlier than average start to last winter that had colder than average temperatures, above average snowfall levels and lasted longer than average that is now responsible for the flooding in Eastern Canada. I mean the proof is undeniable now...

That and Canada's horrific 1.6% contribution to the planet's greenhouse gases.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Tinker

[Rod]

1 hour ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Think they can stop it from changing with a carbon tax and then call everyone else a climate change denier.

They call a tax a climate plan  

[Rod]

51 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

Still waiting for the link to the liberals at that meeting with Andrew Scheer the Koch Brothers oil reps.

 

Oh noes the Koch brothers! Woogie Boogie!

[Rod]

1 hour ago, irv said:

What about all the climate change we had before man came? Was that the dinosaur farts that melted all the ice back then? 

Right from Nasa. Notice how they say "in just the last 650,000 years. A small number considering the earth is billions of years old. 

"The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives"

CDS’ers are simply retarded

[irv]

3 minutes ago, DUMPY said:

CDS’ers are simply retarded

I think Kev and Trail are related. 

 

[revkevsdi]

5 hours ago, 1trailmaker said:

Finally the deniers have realized the facts they have denied for decades is indeed true.  So now its you can`t stop it   

Moving at a snails pace  

 

Can you guys point out all these increased costs that have affected you?

 

for you Ontario fellows can you point out the massive savings you have gotten since June? 

They are too busy complaining about the price at the pumps going up 14 cents without realizing the Carbon tax only added 4 cents.

They are so easily manipulated by the oil industry. 

 

[revkevsdi]

5 hours ago, DUMPY said:

Oh noes the Koch brothers! Woogie Boogie!

Dumpy :  " Climate scientists are in it for the Money. Follow the money."

Me: "Hey look the Climate deniers get their money from the Koch brothers"

Dumpy: "That doesn't count. "

 

[revkevsdi]

5 hours ago, Tinker said:

Of course not but Climate Change and Global Warming is absofnlutely responsible for the earlier than average start to last winter that had colder than average temperatures, above average snowfall levels and lasted longer than average that is now responsible for the flooding in Eastern Canada. I mean the proof is undeniable now...

That and Canada's horrific 1.6% contribution to the planet's greenhouse gases.

Since our population is 0.5% of the world doesn't your 1.6% figure mean we are contributing over 3 times what we should?

 

 

[ArcticCrusher]

3 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

Since our population is 0.5% of the world doesn't your 1.6% figure mean we are contributing over 3 times what we should?

 

 

Our green canopy makes us carbon negative, don't be so fucking stupid.  It's hard, I know.

[revkevsdi]

11 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Our green canopy makes us carbon negative, don't be so fucking stupid.  It's hard, I know.

Sure let's exploit our luck in being born in a place the naturally fights global warming as a reason not to address the crisis. 

Good idea dumb dumb. 

Your buddy Ford admitted that climate change is real.  

But at the same time the dumb fuck reduced fire fighting and flood control budgets. derp derp.

Maybe if Parry Sound has another fire, Druggy can drop by to tell you he has a plan while your cottage burns

[irv]

97% of scientists explanation. 

How do we know the 97% agree?

To elaborate, how was that proven?

Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position.

Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

It’s time to revoke that license.